Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Permit L04-036 - DECKER BRAD - 17401 SOUTHCENTER PARKWAY DESIGN REVIEW
BRAD DECKER WINNERS DEMO 17401 SOUTHCENTER PY L04 -036 City of Tukwila Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director REVISED NOTICE OF DECISION TO: Brad Decker, Applicant King County Assessor, Accounting Division Washington State Department of Ecology Puget Sound Clean Air Agency Catherine Drews, Foster Pepper & Shefelman Melody McCutcheon, Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson Steve Brunette, ING Real Estate Robert Icsman, Jo -Ann Stores Inc. Chuck Wiegman, JSH Properties Brad Renner, Ethan Allen Service Center Dana Moore, Ethan Allen Bob Scofield Joshua Brower, Mentor Law Group Henry Jameson, Jameson Babbitt Stites & Lombard Richard Noonan, Jo -Ann Stores Lance Mueller, Lance Mueller & Assoc. This letter serves as a revised notice of decision and is issued pursuant to TMC 18.104.170 and 18.108.040 on the following project and permit approval. I. PROJECT INFORMATION Steven M Mullet, Mayor March 24, 2005 Project File Number: L04 -036 Applicant: Brad Decker, DDCI Type of Permit: Design Review Approval Project Description: Design approval for a revised one story retail building with associated site and landscape improvements. Location: 17401 Southcenter Parkway Associated Files: E04 - 012 SEPA Appeal File Numbers: L04 -082 Jo -Ann Stores Appeal L04 -083 ING Appeal Type 4 Permit Page 1 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 Comprehensive Plan Designation/Zoning District: Type 4 Permit Tukwila Urban Center H. DECISION SEPA Determination: The City SEPA Responsible Official has determined that the project, as proposed, does not create a probable significant environmental impact and issued a Determination of Non - Significance (DNS). Decision on Substantive Permit: The City Board of Architectural Review has determined that the application for a new retail building complies with applicable City and state code requirements and has approved that application based on the findings and conclusions contained in the staff reports. Decision on Appeal: The Tukwila City Council held a closed record appeal hearing on March 7, 2005. At the March 21, 2005 Council meeting they voted to approve a resolution affirming the Board of Architectural Review decision to approve the project based on the hearing record and findings and conclusions contained in the staff reports. III. YOUR APPEAL RIGHTS No administrative appeal of the City Council Decision is permitted. A party who is not satisfied with the City Council Decision may file an appeal in King County Superior Court from the Decision. IV. PROCEDURES AND TIME FOR APPEALING Any party wishing to challenge the City Council Decision must file an appeal pursuant to the procedures and time limitations set forth in RCW ch. 36.70C. An appeal challenging a DNS, MDNS or an EIS may be included in such an appeal. If no appeal of the City Council decision is properly filed in Superior Court within such time limit, the Decision on this permit will be final. V. INSPECTION OF INFORMATION ON THE APPLICATION Project materials including the application, any staff reports, and other studies related to the permits are available for inspection at the Tukwila Department of Community Development, 6300 Southcenter Blvd., Suite 100, Tukwila, Washington 98188 from Monday through Friday between 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. The project planner is Nora Gierloff, who may be contacted at 206 -433 -7141 for further information. Property owners affected by this decision may request a change in valuation for their property tax purposes. Contact the King County Assessor's Office for further information regarding property tax valuation changes. Department of Community [ elopment City of Tukwila Page 2 E IS IN1 I "A'KI G .T L COMMON 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Am 83 JOANN FABRIC BORDERS BOOKSTORE S 24'51'25' E 27 3a SITE (.RnSS— SFrTInM A — 45 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 \ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 '1 1 VICINITY MAP SC -3 RETAIL BUILDING SITE AREA: 47,694sf BLDG. AREA: 18,677sf ON SITE PARKING: 76 CARS LANDSCAPE AREA: 5,232sf ± SITE PLAN 1.. 20' -0 17401 SOUTHCENTER PARKWAY NOTES: 1. PYLON SIGN SUBJECT TO SIGN CODE. 2. HEIGHT OF PYLON SIGN NOT TO EXCEED 30' A.F.G. 1 3. SITE LIGHTING 1 1 1 9 BOLLARD LIGHTS ® 100W EACH = 900W 7 POLE MOUNTED SHOE BOX LIGHTS ® 400W EACH = 2,800W 1 TOTAL WATTS = 4,100W 1 1 4. MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE WAITS 0 0.20W /SF = 5,476W 1 1 1 1 LANDSCAPE CALCULATIONS: 1 1 PARKING LS REQUIRED IN FRONT /SIDE = 59 STALLS x 15s.f. = 885s.f. 1 PARKING LS SHOWN = 1,365sf 1 1 (NOT INCLUDING 15' FRONT YD. LANDSCAPING) PARKING LS REQUIRED IN REAR = 17 STALLS x 10s.f. = 170s.f. 1 1 PARKING LS SHOWN = 696s.f. CONCRETE PLANTER 322 A .A sJ ROY 142401 Attachment B RI IMPCTFP PI FVATIFIM J a 3 4 Sh.., A1.0 Dept. Of Community Development City of Tukwila AFFIDAVIT OF DISTRI BUTION *alit gID Notice of Public Hearin Notice of Public Meetin Board of Adjustment Agenda.Pkt Board of Appeals Agenda Pkt Planning Commission AgendaPkt Short Subdivision Agenda Shoreline Mgmt Permit FAX To Seattle Times Classifieds Mail: Gail Muller Classifi eds PO Box 70 - Seattle WA;98111 Determination of Non•Significance Mitigated Determination of Non - Significance Determination of Significance & Scoping Notice Notice of Action Notice of Application for Shoreline Mg n Permit' Was mailed to each of the 'addresses listed on this year 2006 Project Name: jC — 3 Project Number: Mailer's Signature: P:GINAWYNETTA/FORMS/ AFFIDAVIT - MAIL 0829/003:31 PM Jam ana bmuage rree rnnnng Use Avery TEMPLATE 5960 Catherine Drews Foster Pepper & Shefelman 1111 3rd Av. Suite 3400 Seattle, WA 98101 Robert Icsman Jo -Ann Stores Inc. 5555 Darrow Road Hudson, OH 44236 Bob Scofield 4212 Hunts Point Road Bellevue, WA 98004 Henry Jameson Jameson Babbitt Stites & Lombard 999 3rd Ave., Suite 1900 Seattle, WA 98104 -4001 Lance Mueller Lance Mueller & Assoc. 130 Lakeside Ave Seattle, WA 98122 m1096S ®AtJ3AV "Melody McCutcheon Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson 500 Galland Building 1221 2nd Av Seattle, WA 98101 -2925 Chuck Wiegman JSH Properties 14900 Interurban Av S Suite 210 Tukwila, WA 98168 -4654 Dana Moore Ethan Allen 17333 Southcenter Py. Tukwila, WA 98188 Brad Decker DDCI 117 East Louisa Street #230 Seattle, WA 98102 All3AV woYIGaneww►nn www.avery.com 1- 800- GO-AVERY �" Steve Brunette ING Real Estate 1001 Fourth Av. Suite 3040 Seattle, WA 98154 Brad Renner Ethan Allen Service Center 20120 72 Av. S. Kent, WA 98032 Joshua Brower Mentor Law Group 1100 Market Pl. Tower 2025 1st Ave. Seattle, WA 98121 Richard Noonan Jo -Ann Stores 2515 4th Ave Seattle, WA 98121 ?i AVERY® 5960 3 O96S Il.tege6 el MUM aplder abetp9s g ;a obeunogr;ue uoissaidwl Hearing Record for Appeal of BAR Design Review Approval File L04 -036 SC -3 Retail Building 17401 Southcenter Parkway Tukwila, WA Hearing Date 3/7/05 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 In Re: Appeal of Design Review Approval for a Project at 17401 Southcenter Parkway This is an appeal from a decision by the City's Board of Architectural Review ("BAR') granting approval to Mr. Brad Decker for construction of a one -story retail building at 17401 Southcenter Parkway. A neighboring property owner (CLPF) and one of its commercial tenants (Jo -Ann Stores) have appealed the BAR's decision. They object to Mr. Decker's project because it is located in front of their building and they fear it will negatively affect the space occupied by Jo- Ann's. They want the City to preserve the views of their building from southbound traffic on Southcenter Parkway by requiring Mr. Decker to modify his building in ways that will decrease its value. Before approving Mr. Decker's application, the BAR held three separate public hearings. It used its authority to require changes in Mr. Decker's building to make it APPLICANT'S MEMORANDUM OF AUTHORITIES- 1 52144W1000\265607.V01 HCJ BEFORE THE TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL COUNTY I. SUMMARY No. Project File No.: L04 -036 APPLICANT BRAD DECKER'S MEMORANDUM OF AUTHORITIES ORIGINAL JAMESON BABBITT STITES &LOMBARD, P.L.L.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 999 Tamp Avenue, Sure 1900 SEAMS, WA 98104 -4001 Tee. 206 2921994 FAx 206 2921995 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 more compatible with the neighboring structure and to insure that it would conform to design standards set forth in the Municipal Code. The result of the process in this case was a building that clearly meets Code requirements. As now designed, the proposed single - building, strip center will contribute to the sense of urban vitality on Southcenter Parkway, enhance pedestrian access to both properties, tie the two properties together in a manner that will benefit both, facilitate shopping in stores in each building, contribute to the economic health of the city through the taxes generated, and advance numerous of the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. The proposal includes buildings oriented to both automobiles and pedestrian traffic (Goal 1.8), adds value to the community (Goal 1.7), is pedestrian friendly and provides convenient access (Goal 1.7) and will enhance the community's economic well being (Goal 1.2) through the tax revenues it generates. The City Council is now called upon to review on the record the lengthy BAR proceedings which, in the last analysis, simply show that the BAR was performing its role precisely as envisioned by the Municipal Code sections that created it. The process worked. Since the BAR did not err when it issued its approval, the City Council should affirm the BAR's decision. While the two appellants allege numerous grounds for their appeal, the basic thrust of their appeal is that Mr. Decker should not be permitted to construct on his property a building that interferes with the view of their building from the southbound lanes on Southcenter Parkway. The essence of their position is that the City should stop Mr. Decker from placing his building in front of theirs because they got there first. The Tukwila zoning code contains no such limitation and the BAR properly rejected the appellants' attempt to create one. Its decision was supported by substantial evidence and should be affirmed by the full City Council. APPLICANT'S MEMORANDUM OF AUTHORITIES- 2 52144\01000\265607.V01 HCJ JAMESON BABBITT STTTES C LOMBARD, P.LLC. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 999 THIRD Annus, Stint 1900 Sums, WA 98104-4001 TEL 206 2921994 FAx 206 2921995 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 L 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 II. HISTORY OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW Mr. Brad Decker initiated the BAR proceedings by applying for permits to construct a new building on his property. Mr. Robert Schofield is Mr. Decker's partner in the development. Mr. Decker's lot contains approximately 47,000 square feet of land. At present, it is improved with a single story building that houses Winners' restaurant. The lot fronts on Southcenter Parkway and is oddly configured. It consists of an L- shaped parcel separated by a common driveway from an additional wedge of property to the north that is used for parking. Mr. Decker's property (with the property lines highlighted) is shown on Tab 1 to this brief. A neighboring property owner (CLPF - Tukwila LP) owns a strip retail center that adjoins Mr. Decker's property. CLPF leases to Jo -Ann Stores, a national chain based in Cleveland, the northern -most shop in CLPF's building. Jo -Ann's space lies to the rear of the existing Winners' building on Mr. Decker's property. CLPF and Jo -Ann Stores oppose the proposed building because they contend it will partially block the view of Jo- Ann's store from cars traveling southbound on Southcenter Parkway. Mr. Decker's property is located at the point at which Southcenter Parkway bends to the left as one travels to the south. CLPF's property hooks around Mr. Decker's. A long, single -story strip center sits on CLPF's land. Part of that building lies behind Mr. Decker's land. The northern end of the CLPF strip center lies just behind the southern wall of Winners' restaurant, which is approximately 60 feet from the northern end of the retail building. The Winners' building effectively blocks any view of CLPF's strip center from cars traveling south on Southcenter Parkway. Tab 2 to this brief is a picture that illustrates the current view from a car traveling southbound. (This document is also Ex. 10 in the record.) All one sees is the restaurant — not the strip APPLICANT'S MEMORANDUM OF AUTHORITIES- 3 52144\01000\265607.V01 HCJ JAMESON BABBITT STITES &LOMBARD, P.LLC. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 999 Two Avsrws, Sarre 1900 Sumps, WA 98104 -4001 Tn. 206 2921994 FAx 206 2921995 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 center behind it. Only when an automobile passes the southern -most wall of the Winners restaurant is the Jo -Ann Store visible as anything other than a roof. It was obvious when CLPF's strip center was built, when Jo -Ann Stores leased its space, and when CLPF bought the improved property last year that (a) Mr. Decker's property sits between the center and Southcenter Parkway and (b) that redevelopment of Mr. Decker's land could affect the view of the northern portion of CLPF's strip center. In June of last year, Mr. Decker applied for a permit to construct a 20,315 square foot retail building with accompanying parking. The first site plan he submitted to the city is attached as Tab 3 and shows the configuration he then envisioned. Mr. Decker planned to demolish the existing restaurant and construct a rectangular, single -story retail center suitable for multiple tenants. He proposed to provide parking for 80 cars in a lot located along Southcenter Parkway to the front of the new building and in 20 stalls on the portion of his land located to the north of the common access drive. The proposed retail building was larger and longer than Winners'. Its southern portion would extend farther in front of the Jo -Ann Store than Winners had. The BAR conducted three separate public hearings on Mr. Decker's application for a permit — on September 16, October 14, and November 18, 2004. In addition, Mr. Decker worked with the city's staff to address its comments and the issues raised by the BAR. He made numerous changes to the project plans, ultimately shrinking the building from 20,315 feet to 18,677 feet, re- orienting its south wall, and significantly altering its appearance to lessen its impact on the CLPF building to its rear. Both Jo -Ann Stores and CLPF objected to the building. Jo -Ann's representative at the hearing complained about the aesthetics, customer access, and safety, but the real concern was that the new building would extend farther to the south than Winners' had. Jo -Ann's representative stated as follows: APPLICANT'S MEMORANDUM OF AUTHORITIES- 4 52144\01000\265607.V01 HCJ JAMESON BABBITT Sums &LOMBARD, P.LL.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 999 Tama Av mue, Score 1900 SeAnii, WA 98104 -4001 TEL 206 2921994 FAx 206 2921995 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 % 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 "But, our major concerns are lack of visibility and also the back alley effect." (Drews testimony, p. 15 of Ex. 14 in Council binder). CLPF's representative, Mr. Chuck Wigman, objected to the design because several of CLPF's tenants had leases with "no- build" clauses that prohibited CLPF from building on its property in front of their shops. CLPF believed that, even though the new project was not on its land, it had a "fiduciary" duty to support its tenant's opposition to the building. Mr. Wigman testified as follows: Urn, we have a couple of leases, you know, Jo -Ann's and Borders Books, but both have a 'no- build' clause that's marked out in their leases. Um, and frankly we can't really, you know, offer up that, you know, and work in conjunction with something that's going to put a building in an area on the leases that would have shown as a 'no- build' clause. ( Wigman testimony, p. 16, 17 of Ex. 14 in Council binder) CLPF objected to the height, location and parking layout of the proposed project. It refused to cooperate in any way with Mr. Decker's project for fear of being sued by its tenants. (Wigman testimony, p. 16, 17 of Ex. 14 and p. 17 of Ex. 8) CLPF and Jo -Ann's saw the project only through the prism of their self - interest, and to them the problem was simple — the new building would extend farther to the south than Winners. They did not see this as desirable. They felt it could impact the value of their property. They wanted the city to stop Mr. Decker's project because they believed that their right to maximize the economic value of their property superseded Mr. Decker's right to do the same with his property. They apparently believed that first in time made first in right — that they were entitled to have their way because they built their strip center before Mr. Decker applied to build his. There is no such concept contained in the Tukwila Zoning Code. Views are not protected under the Code. City staff had a number of comments and concerns about the plan. Mr. Decker worked extensively with staff to address those concerns. In August, the city sent the original site plan to an urban design firm in San Francisco for comment. The urban planner recognized that "given the constraints of parcel size and shape, possible APPLICANT'S MEMORANDUM OF AUTHORITIES- 5 52144\01000\265607.V01 HCJ JAMESON BABBITT STTIES LOMBARD, P.L.L.0 ATTORNEYS AT LAW 999 THIRD Avsmus, Surly 1900 Sums, WA 98104-4001 Tn. 206 2921994 FAx 206 2921995 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 reconfiguration alternatives with the building are limited." (See, Tab F of Ex. 13 in record.) The planner acknowledged that the original plan maximized efficiency on the site, but commented that it created an awkward relationship with CLPF's strip center and failed to contribute to street frontage. He sketched (with no dimensions or details of any sort) an L- shaped building massed on the northwest portion of Mr. Decker's property. His sketch is attached to this brief as Tab 4. The urban planner did not purport to be familiar with the specific property or any restrictions that might affect his massing concept. For reasons discussed later in this brief, it would be impossible to implement his plan under the Code due to parking constraints. Even had it been possible to construct, the plan was not economically feasible because it would have produced a building with considerably less rental value. However, based on discussions with city staff, Mr. Decker made a number of changes to his original plan in order to better accommodate the proposed building to both the unique site and to CLPF's building to its rear. At the first hearing before the BAR on September 16, 2004, Ms. Bradshaw of the City's staff reported on the discussions between Mr. Decker and the staff, noting that Mr. Decker was unable for a number of reasons to change the overall layout of the building (Bradshaw testimony, p. 6 of Ex. 14). She also reported that Mr. Decker had agreed to revise his plans to address the City's concerns and to better blend the new building with CLPF's behind it. At the first hearing, he presented sketches of revised plans. Among the changes from the first to the second versions were the following: • inclusion of a pedestrian plaza on the south side of the new building (opposite Jo -Ann's entrance) • greatly enhanced pedestrian access between the street, the new building, and CLPF's building APPLICANT'S MEMORANDUM OF AUTHORITIES- 6 52144W1000\265607.V01 HCJ JAMESON BABBITT STr1ES &LOMBARD, P.LL.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 999 Tama Averom, Surrs 1900 SEATTLE, WA 98104 -4001 TEL 206 2921994 FAx 206 2921995 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 • incorporation of a sidewalk running on the west side of the building (opposite Jo- Ann's) to enhance customer access • addition of benches, trash receptacles, railings and bike racks • significant reduction in the size of the building from 20,315 square feet to 18,677 • alteration of the orientation of the south wall so that it would slope back from the Jo -Ann space toward the street • relocation of the trash /recycle areas to the north, away from Jo- Ann's, and screening of them • addition of windows in the south elevation • addition of design elements to the west side (opposite Jo- Ann's), including opaque glass, to make the west side appear to be identical to the front of the building • widening the parapets and addition of parapets on the north and south elevations, and addition of a parapet to provide a design focal point as recommended by the urban designers • changes to the landscaping to improve the look of the project. (See p. 1 -6 of Bradshaw testimony, Ex. 8). Ms. Bradshaw testified as follows: So staff felt that with this compromise in the, urn, site layout here, and with the improvements in the elevation along the west side and south side, and urn, landscaping (unintelligible), we felt that at this point we could recommend approval of the overall site layout, subject to refinements of the parapet elements that are being added and the paving detail here. (Bradshaw testimony, p.7 of Ex. 14) The staff at this point, with the revised site plan that was received this week, feels that the BAR could approve the project, subject to conditions. (Bradshaw testimony, p.8 of Ex. 14) APPLICANT'S MEMORANDUM OF AUTHORITIES- 7 52144\01000 V65607. V 01 HCJ JAMESON BABBITT STITES &LOMBARD, P.L.L.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 999 TM= Avows, Sure 1900 SZArne, WA 98104 -4001 Tu. 206 2921994 FAx 206 2921995 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Because the BAR did not have final plans before it to reflect the changes explained to it, the BAR continued the hearing for a month. When the BAR reconvened on October 14, it had a revised staff report that incorporated additional findings and conclusions to reflect the changes that had been made since the initial staff report. These are summarized in Ms. Bradshaw's testimony at pages 1- 6 of Ex. 8. Based on these changes, the city staff recommended approval of the application with a few specified conditions. See, Bradshaw testimony, p.3 of Ex. 8; p. 15 of Ex. 7). At the October hearing, several BAR members expressed concern about certain safety issues relating to access between the CLPF property and Mr. Decker's. These were complicated because CLPF had refused to cooperate in any way with the proposed development — even refusing Mr. Decker's offer to pay for improvements on CLPF's land that would benefit both properties. (p. 14,15, 16 of Ex. 14; p. 10,17, 25 of Ex. 8). In order to ensure that the safety concerns were addressed, the BAR continued the hearing for another month to permit staff to address the issues. The staff did so, submitting its second supplemental staff report to the BAR dated November 4, 2004. By then, Mr. Decker had addressed all of the additional concerns raised by the BAR. The final site plan is attached as Tab 5 to show the proposed configuration presented to the BAR. At the November hearing, Ms. Gierloff of the city staff testified as follows: And so staff's recommendation is that the applicant has addressed each of the items that you called out as areas of concern, with the exception of the two items being addressed at the time of the building permit, those changes are reflected in the site plans that you have before you. ( Gierloff testimony, p.3 of Ex. 4). The staff's findings of fact and conclusions of law addressed the design criteria and the history of the project. The staff report recommended approval. The BAR then adopted the findings of fact, conclusions of law and recommendations for approval from the staff, voting 5 to 1 to approve the project. (p.9 of Ex. 4). APPLICANT'S MEMORANDUM OF AUTHORITIES- 8 52144W1000\265607.V01 HCJ JAMESON BABBITT STITES &LOMBARD, P.L.L.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 999 Timo Avenue, Score 1900 SeArne, WA 98104-4001 TEL 206 2921994 FAx 206 2921995 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 On November 19, 2004, the city's Department of Community Development issued its notice of decision, advising all parties as follows: Decision on Substantive Permit: The City Board of Architectural Review has determined that the application for a new retail building complies with the applicable city and state code requirements and has approved that application based on the findings and conclusions contained in the staff reports. CLPF and Jo -Ann Stores then filed notices of appeal. III. ARGUMENT A. The BAR Did Not Shift The Burden Of Proof Or Apply The Wrong Standard Of Proof TMC 18.60.050(A) states that the applicant shall bear the burden of proof that a proposed development satisfies the design review criteria set forth in that section. No one has ever contended to the contrary. Nothing in the transcript indicates in any way that the BAR thought the City, CLPF, Jo -Ann Stores, or anyone other than Mr. Decker had the burden of proving Mr. Decker's entitlement to the permit. TMC 18.60.030 grants the BAR authority to approve plans "based upon a clear demonstration of compliance with all of the guidelines of this chapter." The code does not define "clear demonstration." Nothing in the record of the BAR'S proceedings indicates in any way that the BAR was unaware of the requirement that the applicant clearly demonstrate its compliance with the design criteria. The BAR routinely acts under these ordinances. Both the BAR and the Department are familiar with them. There is no reason to presume that the BAR acted in utter ignorance of them. The record of these proceedings refutes any claim that the city did not squarely place upon Mr. Decker the burden of clearly demonstrating compliance with the APPLICANT'S MEMORANDUM OF AUTHORITIES- 9 52144\01000\265607. V01 HCJ JAMESON BABBITT STITES &LOMBARD, P.LL.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 999 Temp Ann's, Surn 1900 SurrLr, WA 98104 -4001 TEL 206 2921994 FAx 206 2921995 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 ordinance's requirements. He was required to revise his plans three times. At each step of this process, Mr. Decker made significant revisions to address both the design criteria and the concerns expressed by the BAR and the city staff. Before the BAR approved the project, Mr. Decker had reduced the size of his building, revised its exterior perimeter lines, moved and re- oriented the south wall, upgraded the landscaping, provided for safety measures, provided a sidewalk along the west side, provided a pedestrian link far superior to that which currently exists, provided an extensive pedestrian plaza to link its building with the neighboring one, and altered the aesthetic look and feel of the west side so that it looked more like the front of the building. Oddly, this knit the two buildings together in a way that would benefit customers and pedestrians, encouraging movement from building to building. The net result of these design changes — necessary to obtain BAR approval — was to enhance the relationship between the proposed building and the existing one by facilitating movement of customers between them and, for that matter, by facilitating Jo -Ann's parking by providing additional stalls directly on the west face of the new building. These changes enhanced the Center, increased customer safety, and should benefit Jo- Ann's as well as Mr. Decker. There is ample evidence in the record to establish all of these facts. Taken together, they support the BAR's conclusion that Mr. Decker met his burden of proof. Jo -Ann Stores claims that the BAR "improperly shifted the burden of proof" because "it was worn down by the applicant's refusal to re- design the proposal consistent with the city's independent design consultant's recommendations." If anybody was worn down, it was Mr. Decker. He went through an extraordinary and costly series of design changes in order to pass the city's exacting standards. The two notices of appeal also allege that the city did not properly apply the standard of proof because one of the Board members stated that Mr. Decker's proposal APPLICANT'S MEMORANDUM OF AUTHORITIES- 10 52144 \01000\265607.V01 HCJ JAMESON BABBITT STITES &LOMBARD, P.LLC. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 999 Tarns Anmue, Surre 1900 S&ATTU, WA 98104 -4001 Tn. 206 2921994 FAx 206 2921995 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 only "eked over" the threshold for approval. The Board does not speak through one member, but through all by their votes. Even if Mr. Decker's proposal only "eked over" the threshold, he clearly demonstrated his compliance with the design criteria — which was the threshold he was required to meet. Whether he eked over it or exceeded it by a mile, he met it. Before any vote was taken, Commissioner Ekberg grilled the staff as to its recommendations. The second supplemental staff report clearly recommended approval. The exchange at the third hearing was as follows: Ekerg: I have one question of staff. As everyone is aware, the planning commission relies on the recommendation of staff for certain pieces of information. In regard to the design criteria, does this project meet City standards for design criteria. Gierloff: We are recommending approval (unintelligible). (p. 6 of Ex. 4) Commissioner Malina, who voted for approval, stated that Mr. Decker "has probably done enough mitigation, if that's the right word, to get across the threshold for approval." He also pointed out that there are a couple of other developments on Southcenter Parkway that have just eked over the edge of design review at minimum criteria ". (p. 7 of Ex. 4). Commissioner Peterson voiced the opinion that the applicant had met the threshold of approval. He stated that "I think that the applicant is trying to maximize the property use, while complying with all the standards. Like I said, I think it's a challenging piece of property. They have come to us with a solution that I think meets that threshold. At the same time, urn, I anyways think I am okay with this and I could support it." (p. 8 of Ex. 4) Commissioner Ekberg reviewed the comprehensive plan and the project and believed the applicant had met its burden. He stated as follows: APPLICANT'S MEMORANDUM OF AUTHORITIES- 11 52144\01000\265607.V01 }ICJ JAMESON BABBITT STITFS & LOMBARD, P.L.L.0 ATPOENETS AT LAW 999 TAD Avr u , Sun! 1900 SEATILT, WA 98104 -4001 TEL 206 2921994 FAx 206 2921995 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 And the BAR seeks to allow and approve development to occur, based on guidelines that have been established by the City. According to the information that I have received from our staff, those guidelines have been met. Therefore I am in support of this project. (p.8 -9 of Vol. III of transcript). Commissioner Meryhew voiced his opinion at the October hearing that the project complied with city guidelines and was "a great thing for the community, and, uh, for the area down there." (p. 39 of Ex. 4). At the November hearing, he stated as follows: I am satisfied that the applicant has met the requirements and the design meets the BAR requirements. Urn, I'm all for approval of this program. (p. 8 of Ex. 4). The vote was 5 to 1 to approve. All five concurred Mr. Decker's application did pass the threshold. The record is quite clear that he met his burden and that the BAR knew very well what that burden was. To hold otherwise would require not that Mr. Decker meet the requirements of the ordinance, but that he exceed them in some unknown and ultimately immeasurable way. B. The BAR Did Not Fail To Issue Written Findings And Conclusions Of Law The BAR's powers and duties are specified by the city zoning code. TMC 18.108.040(C) governs type 4 decisions and provides in relevant part as follows: Following a public hearing on a type 4 decision, the Board of Architectural Review or Planning Commission shall render a written decision, including findings of fact and conclusions of law, and the Department shall promptly issue a Notice of Decision pursuant to TMC 18.104.170. APPLICANT'S MEMORANDUM OF AUTHORITIES- 12 52144\01000\265607.V01 HCJ JAMESON BABBITT Sims &LOMBARD, P.L.L.0 ATTORNEYS AT LAW 999 Tsmn Amax Surra 1900 SrATn2, WA 98104 -4001 Tn. 206 2921994 FAx 206 2921995 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Jo -Ann Stores and CLPF claim that the Council should reverse the BAR because the BAR failed to prepare its own written findings and conclusions. This argument completely ignores TMC 18.112.050(B), which states as follows: Any hearing body may adopt as its own, findings and conclusions recommended by the Department. The City Council may adopt as its own all or portions of Board of Architectural Review and Planning Commission's findings and conclusions, regarding type 4 decisions. (emphasis supplied) hearing: The BAR resolved as follows at the conclusion of its November 18, 2004 public Meryhew: I'll make a motion that item L04 -036, the, um, retail building, demolition of the Winners restaurant and development of the new building there at 17401 Park, Southcenter Parkway, be approved with staff's findings and conclusions and, uh, the recommendation caught (sic) out in the staff report. (p. 9 of Ex. 4) This motion passed on a 5 to 1 vote. The adoption of the staff's findings and conclusions followed three separate public hearings. These, in turn, reviewed three separate versions of the staff report. Each of these was iterative — it built upon the previous report. Each staff report contained detailed findings of fact and conclusions of law. The second supplemental staff report (Ex. 3) — the last of the documents — also included a background that summarized the previous proceedings and the changes in the project to that point. CLPF's notice of appeal claims the Notice of Decision was inadequate because it didn't identify which staff report was being adopted. But each report built on the previous one and specifically so recites. The second supplemental staff report provides conclusions for the Board based upon the findings of fact contained in it and in the earlier staff reports. (p.9 of Ex. 3) APPLICANT'S MEMORANDUM OF AUTHORITIES- 13 52144\01000\265607.V01 HCJ JAMESON BABBITT STITES &LOMBARD, P.L.L.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 999 Tem Avrr uz, Sims 1900 ST AMA WA 98104-4001 Tn. 206 2921994 FAx 206 2921995 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 The purpose of any set of findings and conclusion is to allow the reviewing body to understand the basis of the decision. The findings and conclusions need not be prepared in any specific format. The Department's staff reports in this case provide detailed findings that address each of the design criteria. Because the BAR complied with the express requirements of the Tukwila Municipal Code, the argument that it failed to prepare findings and conclusions lacks merit. C. The BAR Did Not Err By Declining To Protect The View Of The Adjoining Property Owner Nothing in the TMC preserves to any property owner specific view corridors or view "rights" at the expense of an adjoining landowner. The principle for which the appellants argue would allow any property owner to prevent development on adjoining property if that such development interfered with the sight lines of an existing building. Were any city to adopt such a requirement, it would run afoul of constitutional protections of property. This would be, in essence, a "taking." Rights of one property owner would be taken in order to benefit another property owner. In its notice of appeal, CLPF claims that Goal 1.7 of the city's comprehensive plan makes the visibility of businesses along Southcenter Parkway a part of the city's design review criteria. A full copy of Goal 1.7 is attached to this brief as Tab 6. It says nothing about views or the preservation of views. One of the oddities of this argument is how trivial it is. There is ample evidence contained in the record that the "view" which the appellants seek to protect is ephemeral at best and of little consequence to the occupants of a car traveling south. (See p. 24, Vol. I of transcript). Winners restaurant already blocks the view of Jo- Ann's to anyone traveling south on Southcenter Parkway. A driver would not even see Jo -Ann's space until clearing the south wall of Winners — and even then one would have APPLICANT'S MEMORANDUM OF AUTHORITIES- 14 52144\01000\265607.V01 HCJ JAMESON BABBITT STITES & LOMBARD, P.L.L.C. ATIVRNEYs AT LAW 999 TAD Amin, Smn 1900 SEArns, WA 98104-4001 Tct 206 2921994 FAx 206 2921995 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 to swivel his head 90 degrees as soon as he passed the restaurant to even glimpse the space. No driver could safely do this in view of the congestion on the roadway. Southbound drivers locate Jo -Ann's by its roadside signage - it receives top billing on the pylon sign at the front of CLPF's center. For cars traveling south to north, Jo - Ann's is fully visible now and will be after Mr. Decker builds the new retail building. Many buildings along Southcenter Parkway are built on pads in front of strip centers. Many of these obstruct the view of the tenant spaces behind them. That is a fact of life with retail strip centers. As Mr. Schofield (an expert in retail operations) testified in this case, requiring the relocation of Mr. Decker's building to the front part of the lot would only produce howls of protest from Borders Books, whose view would then be blocked. (p. 25 of Ex. 8). It bears emphasis that CLPF bought its property with full knowledge that it was located behind Mr. Decker's. Jo -Ann Stores knew (or should have known) when it executed its lease that someone else owned the property in front of the leased premises. Mr. Decker has worked long and hard with the city to modify his design to fit with the building behind it. The current design knits the new building into the old in a harmonious fashion. The two appellants have no right to dictate the size or shape of Mr. Decker's building in order to preserve the already obstructed view of Jo -Ann's space. D. The BAR Did Not Commit Error By Failing To Require The Applicant To Adopt An Alternative Layout The appellants claim that the BAR wrongly failed to consider an alternative layout of the proposed building. The thrust of this argument is that the BAR should have required the applicant to follow the sketch prepared by the San Francisco urban designer. APPLICANT'S MEMORANDUM OF AUTHORITIES- 15 52144\01000\265607.V01 HG JAMESON BABBITT STITES & LOMBARD, P.LLC. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 999 Team AYRNUE, Simi 1900 Seams, WA 98104 -4001 TEL 206 2921994 FAx 206 2921995 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 During the review process, the city staff consulted a San Francisco design firm. It prepared a sketch of one possible alternative. A sketch is not a design. There were no dimensions. The proposal paid no attention to parking problems, the urban designer had no knowledge of restrictions upon use of access to the property, and the proposal was conceptual only. The proposed layout simply did not work on the applicant's property. It, required access from the south (CLPF's land). Mr. Decker could not provide such access. A landscape bed and berm lies on CLPF's property precisely where the urban planner showed the entrance to the parking he proposed for Mr. Decker. Mr. Decker cannot remove the berm because he does not own it. He has no easement to go through or over it. He testified as follows: The one to the south, we don't have an easement to enter from the south. That's why we are asking ING [ CLPF's agent] to work with us, urn, to provide one in our current design. Then again, they are unwilling to work with us. (Decker, p. 12, Vol I of transcript). It is more than a little ironic that CLPF is claiming the BAR failed to require Mr. Decker to adopt a "design" that is unworkable precisely because of CLPF's own intransigence. Ample testimony from Mr. Decker, Mr. Schofield, and Mr. Wigman (ING's local manager) establishes that when the applicants first approached CLPF, they were told CLPF wanted nothing to do with them and would not work with them. (Schofield testimony, p.25 of Ex. 8). Mr. Decker testified that CLPF declined to work with him as he designed the project (Decker testimony, p.11, Ex. 14 and p.10, Ex. 8). Mr. Decker even offered to pay for new landscaping on CLPF's property that would benefit both. He also offered to pay to connect the driveway in order to integrate the parking. CPLF declined to have anything to do with Mr. Decker. (Decker testimony, p.10 of Ex. 8). Mr. Wigman, its representative, acknowledged that CLPF would do nothing to facilitate APPLICANT'S MEMORANDUM OF AUTHORITIES- 16 52144\01000\265607.V01 HCJ JAMESON BABBITT STrrES & LOMBARD, P.L.L.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 999 Tamp AVENUE, SurrE 1900 Sirnti, WA 98104 -4001 TEL 206 2921994 FAx 206 2921995 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 the development of the adjoining property. CLPF believes it is constrained by leases it signed with its tenants to support their opposition to the development. (Wigman testimony, p. 17 of Ex. 8). The city staff correctly noted that the urban planner's sketch could not work because of the inability to connect the parking to the lots to the south. (Bradshaw testimony, p.6 of Ex. 14). The proposed L -shape also resulted in what the staff referred to as a "disconnect" with Mr. Decker's land to the north of the access drive. The 20 parking stalls on that land are needed for the new retail building, yet they lie across the common entranceway at the north of the site. The urban designer did not know this. His L -shape design completely cuts off this essential parking from the building. Customers parking in the north lot would have to walk down the vehicle entrance to reach the back of the building, then somehow make their way around the building to its front. The argument overlooks other, economic realities. Success of a retail development depends upon the availability of parking near the doors to the shops. The L- shaped design contained in the consultant's sketch provided little parking near the shops and so decreased their rental value. An L- shaped design provides the shops with virtually no visibility to traffic moving from north to south on Southcenter Parkway. CLPF and Jo -Ann Stores object to a development that will result in miniscule, if any, additional blockage of their visibility, but at the same time complain that the BAR failed to require Mr. Decker to adopt a design that would deny his tenants the very visibility for which Jo -Ann's fights so tenaciously. The BAR is not required to make Mr. Decker adopt a design that is not economic. There are no design criteria or standards that require Mr. Decker to use a design of the type sketched by the consultant. Ms. Bradshaw testified that "at this time we APPLICANT'S MEMORANDUM OF AUTHORITIES- 17 52144 \01000\265607.V01 HCJ JAMESON BABBITT STITES &LOMBARD, P.LL.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 999 THIRD Avows, Suns 1900 SsArns, WA 98104 -4001 TEL 206 2921994 FAx 206 2921995 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 don't have any standards or criteria that really suggest that needs to be done." (Bradshaw testimony, p. 11 of Ex. 14) Effectively, the appellants are arguing that the BAR should have required the applicant to follow a design "sketch" not supported by the city's design criteria and not workable in any event. This makes no sense. E. The BAR Correctly Concluded That The Proposal Met The City's Design Criteria In its Notice of Appeal, Jo -Ann's includes a hodgepodge of allegations, the thrust of which is all the same — that the BAR should not have approved the project. Each of the alleged errors is considered separately below. 1. Pedestrian Movement and Parking Jo -Ann's claims that the proposal did not provide adequately for pedestrian movement and so would force pedestrians to park further from existing businesses or cross a common access drive. The record shows the opposite to be true. The site plan (Tab 5 attached hereto) shows that pedestrian access has been greatly improved. From the street, pedestrians no longer have to wind their way through a parking lot to reach the stores in CLPF's building. Mr. Decker has provided a pedestrian plaza and a sidewalk that fronts the west of his building to provide realistic access to Jo -Ann's and the other stores in the CLPF building. Mr. Decker's plans increase, rather than reduce, the available parking. The traffic study submitted to the city confirmed that replacement of the restaurant with retail shops would reduce traffic and parking problems by decreasing the number of users. (p. 30 of Ex. 14) The existing restaurant places a much greater demand on parking in front of Jo -Ann's than will the retail stores. (p. 21 -24 of Ex. 14) Right now, the view from the front door of Jo -Ann's is nothing but cars. Restaurant patrons occupy APPLICANT'S MEMORANDUM OF AUTHORITIES- 18 52144\01000\265607.V01 HCJ JAMESON BABBITT STTIES &LOMBARD, P.L.L.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 999 Teen Arms, Suns 1900 Ss Arni, WA 98104 -4001 TEL 206 2921994 FAx 206 2921995 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 many of the parking spaces near the store, especially during lunch and dinner times. That means that Jo -Ann's customers are forced to park farther from its front door. (p. 21 -24 of Ex. 14). The approved plans provide parking stalls along the west side of Mr. Decker's building, directly across from Jo- Ann's, that will be available to its customers. The proposal provides a safer environment for pedestrians and better parking for Jo- Ann's users — not the opposite. (p. 22 -25 of Ex. 14) 2. The Allegation That The Proposal Fails To Moderate The Visual Impact Of Service Areas. Jo -Ann's claims that an unscreened service area for Mr. Decker's proposed building will be directly in front of its store. That is simply not true, as the site plan shows. (Tab 5) The recycling and garbage areas are screened and are located to the north of Jo- Ann's. They were moved there when the city pointed out that the initial site plan had located them opposite Jo- Ann's. (p. 31 of Ex. 14). Paragraph 3F of the Findings in the second staff report expressly recites this. (p. 7 of Ex. 3) 3. Allegation of lack of adequate landscape transition. Jo -Ann Stores claims there is no appropriate landscape transition between the backside of Mr. Decker's building and CLPF's building. The final landscape plan (part of Tab B to Ex. 3) shows the opposite, itemizing which trees and shrubs are used on the backside of the applicant's building. The adequacy of the landscaping is acknowledged in paragraph 2B of the findings contained in the second supplemental staff report (page 5 of Ex. 3). Landscaping was discussed throughout the hearing and the BAR insured that there would be adequate landscape transition. APPLICANT'S MEMORANDUM OF AUTHORITIES- 19 52144\01000\265607.V01 HCJ JAMESON BABBITT STITES &LOMBARD, P.LL.0 ATTORNEYS AT LAW 999 THIRD Avows, Sum 1900 SEAm.r, WA98104 -4001 TEL 206 2921994 FAx 206 2921995 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 4. Jo -Ann's Allegation That The Building Blocks Visual Access And Is Too Close To Jo- Ann's. Jo -Ann Stores argues that the proposed retail building is too close to its store and so creates a "back alley" effect. The new building does not block the view of Joann's front door. Its southernmost wall is 32 feet north of Jo -Ann's front door. (p. 20 of Ex. 14) Since the building angles away from the CLPF building, at its closest point it is about 60 feet away and, near the entrance of Jo- Ann's, is about 85 feet away. (p. 21 of Ex. 14) TMC 18.06.035 defines "alley" as a thoroughfare not more than 20 feet wide. This is not an "alley ". Mr. Decker made a number of revisions to mitigate the impact on the CLPF building. Originally, the Jo -Ann's store looked out on the back of Mr. Decker's retail building. To avoid this impression, Mr. Decker made many changes (see p. 6 - 7 above for a summary) whose effect was to alter the aesthetics of his building so as to make the back similar in appearance to the front. Customers patronizing Jo -Ann's will not have the feel of an alley. Instead, they will be in a pedestrian friendly retail environment that will have the feel of the University Village and that will encourage customers of each building to shop in the other. What is wrong with that? The changes required by the staff and BAR were necessary to obtain approval of the project. They avoided the "back alley" feel of which Jo -Ann's complains and did exactly what the TMC contemplates — they harmonized Mr. Decker's building with CLPF's. APPLICANT'S MEMORANDUM OF AUTHORITIES- 20 52144\01000\265607.V01 HCJ JAMESON BABBITT STITES C LOMBARD, P.L.L.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 999 Tem Avsxus, Sums 1900 Sums, WA 98104 -4001 TEL 206 2921994 FAx 206 2921995 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 The BAR exists to apply its expertise in matters of design to all applications for new developments within the City. In this case, it clearly fulfilled its role. It required Mr. Decker to revise his plans several times in order to insure that Mr. Decker's project would comply with the design review criteria contained in the Tukwila Municipal Code. After the revisions, Mr. Decker was able to clearly demonstrate that his project met the Code requirements, and the BAR properly approved it. The City Council's review is limited to the record established before the BAR. Since there is substantial evidence in that record to support the BAR's decision, that decision should be affirmed. CLPF and Jo -Ann Stores have no vested right to any particular "view" and cannot stop an adjoining landowner's development just because they believe it is in their economic self - interest to do so. DATED this 25th day of February, 2005. JAMESON BABBITT STITES & LOMBARD, P.L.L.C. APPLICANT'S MEMORANDUM OF AUTHORITIES- 21 52144\01000\265607.V01 HCJ IV. CONCLUSION By Henry C. Jam n, WSBA #05676 Attorneys for Applicant Brad Decker JAMESON BABBITT STTIES € LOMBA1W, P.L.L.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 999 THIRD AVENUE, Sums 1900 Burnie, WA 98104-4001 TEL 206 2921994 FAx 206 2921995 •■••■••■•■ It :1•0 , . . 1 ir..111 :1•1 Al I : ............ ; I , 10ANNi FABRIC BOOKSTORE 1 ( e . (tom; . !...• IAA :,... j4,4..St•'.11/•• tri 111 1! 1 111111 1 ,•ii i :1 , , ; I: ,, ..-•-) i:1,1!! Ill i .:: . VICINITY MAP. SC-3 RETAIL BUILDING ITC . AKA: 4 7 111 DC,. Ail'. A: (NI SIP; 1 AIMAC1.111 PAI-.1(11 'A/ TWA( t;441... MC. •• • 1J4. • r• 1 it 4. SITE PLAN ' /401 ".T 1. PYLON 51(;r: Pr,1 JUL. ' Z. HICIrt cr r 41: I• "t r 3f,' A 1.4 51:C 1.1C11 6 VIII.1 6 1711 rMlI 1.;0■1 Ml.lIIIrI 1 '.118 IU.X • l/1 A( II - l'A■W 11 ';(:(01(.1 14;11P. •I 1:;..;1 t - 1,1(vAti 11)1A1 *4 ! • 4 Lams/URA At.i.0011.1.1 ',I • *., • it ow/ A • • 4. 9 • St i 3 • •;;,•• 7 — CO 2 LiJ :=1 < 6 8 - Cr: in Cr') sr ) N:/ PoI4ck /dwgs /toofiwld /.Hrry/AI —Orsv .dwq uaf: BASE.dwq Lrs3 1131vn+ I 004 IA Vl00, � I•dM��dd �3lN3 a N 0196'36' E 30.66' Goal 1.7 Commercial districts that are visually attractive and add value to the community, are visitor and pedestrian friendly, are designed with pride and constructed with quality workmanship, are secure and safe with adequate lighting and convenient access, are uncongested with smooth - flowing traffic patterns, are well- maintained with adequate streetscape landscaping, and are wholesome and in harmony with adjacent uses. Policies 1.7.1 Require design review for significant commercial development. 1.7.2 Require sidewalks for all new construction and redevelopment. 1.7.3 Require adequate parking and lighting. 1.7.4 Require fencing and landscape buffers between commercial and residential uses. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES ♦ Encourage "welcome signs" and information kiosks ♦ Design review guidelines 4 Development standards Transportation Corridors Goal 1.8 A more attractive form of commercial development along major streets in the community, in which buildings and plantings are prominent and oriented to pedestrians, transit and automobiles. Policies 1.8.1 Restructure zoning ordinances to allow mixed uses along designated transportation corridors. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY ♦ Mixed - use zoning TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Community Image December 4, 1995 21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24. 25 26 In re: Appeal of Design Review Approval for a Project at 17401 Southcenter Parkway, CLPF - Tukwila, L.P., and Jo -Ann Stores, Inc., Brad Decker, Appellants, Applicant. BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON RECEIVED MAR 0 2 2005' DEVELOPMENT Project File No. L04 -036 PREHEARING BRIEF OF APPELLANT JO -ANN STORES, INC. Appellant Jo -Ann Stores, Inc. is appealing the decision by the Board of Architectural Review (BAR) to grant design review approval for Brad Decker's proposed retail building in front of the Jo - Ann's store on Southcenter Parkway. Jo -Ann Stores, Inc. respectfully urges the City Council to reverse the BAR approval and remand the application to the Board for further consideration. I. THE BUILDING DESIGN IS NOT IN HARMONY WITH NEIGHBORING DEVELOPMENT. The vast majority of the customers of Jo -Ann's are women; many are elderly. Creating a long, dark, unfriendly alley for them to walk through in order to shop at Jo -Ann's cannot possibly be considered harmonious development. If this is the result of the City's design review process, why bother with design review at all? The BAR has approved a building design that "ignores the adjacent building to the southwest" in which Jo -Ann's is located. The BAR approved a building design that is "massed in a rectilinear shape along the back of the property effectively creating an alley -like area between its rear and the adjacent Mentor Law Group, PLLC 1100 Market Place Tower JO -ANN'S PREHEARING BRIEF 1 2025 First Avenue Seattle, Washington 98121 TEL 206.493.2300 FAX 206.493.2310 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 'sop' 26 property's building front." These statements are quoted directly from the City's August 19, 2004 Staff Report, and were adopted by the BAR as its own findings and conclusions. Those findings and conclusions alone warrant disapproval of this project design, on the ground that it is not in harmony with neighboring development. See Tukwila Municipal Code Section 18.60.050(B)(4)(b). Neither of these problems was remedied prior to the BAR's approval of this project's design. Neither of these problems was addressed in the subsequent staff reports which were also adopted by the BAR. In a January 26, 2005 memorandum to the City Council, the City's Director of Community Development has acknowledged "possible confusion" created by the BAR's adoption of multiple staff reports with findings that ,contradict and are inconsistent with its ultimate approval of the project. These findings are more than just possibly confusing; they are fatal to the BAR's approval decision. Contrary to the staffs suggestion, the solution is not to direct the staff to prepare a new "consolidated Notice of Decision "; such a "consolidated" decision cannot cure the contradictory findings and conclusions which are fully a part of the record before the City Council and cannot now be ignored. Rather, the solution is to remand this application back to the BAR with directions to consider carefully the City's design review criteria. In particular, Section 18.60.050 of the Tukwila Municipal Code requires the applicant to demonstrate that buildings are of the appropriate scale and in harmony with permanent neighboring developments. That demonstration was not made here. Nor could it be made. The evidence in the record demonstrates exactly the opposite. So, too, do the findings and conclusions of the BAR quoted above. Mentor Law Group, PLLC 1100 Market Place Tower JO -ANN'S PREHEARING BRIEF 2 2025 First Avenue Seattle, Washington 98121 TEL 206.493.2300 FAX 206.493.2310 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 The BAR heard testimony by a representative of Jo -Ann's that the proposed building design will create safety concerns on the part of Jo -Ann's customers: [T]here is a whole other row of parking that goes there, that's shared between us and Winners, that our guests park in that has access to the front of our store. We're now going to ask a lot of those guests to go around to the north end of the building and park back there, which quite frankly, our guests tell us they don't feel safe parking back there. Testimony of Richard Noonan, Transcript of October 14, 2004 hearing, p. 16. The applicant cavalierly dismisses the present "view from the front door of Jo- Ann's" as "nothing but cars." Applicant's Memorandum of Authorities at 18. But that is exactly the point — as the applicant acknowledges elsewhere in his brief to the City Council: "Success of a retail development depends upon the availability of parking near the doors to the shops." Id. at 17. Convenient and safe parking and pedestrian circulation are critically important if a building is designed to be in harmony with neighboring development. The evidence in the record establishes that the design approved by the BAR would result in a much longer building than the Winners Restaurant presently occupying the site. Now, the southern edge of the restaurant is approximately even with the northern edge of the Jo - Ann's store. The building approved by the BAR would extend about 90 feet further south, directly in front of Jo- Ann's. It would effectively create an alley between the new building's backside and Jo- Ann's. Is this harmonious development? No. This is why a remand to the BAR is necessary. II. ALTERNATIVE BUILDING DESIGN SHOULD BE CONSIDERED. Not only is the project design approved by the BAR unharmonious and therefore not consistent with the City's design review criteria, it is completely unnecessary. Alternative design is possible and should have been considered. Mentor Law Group, PLLC Place Tower JO -ANN'S PREHEARING BRIEF 3 1100 M 2025 t First Avenue Seattle, Washington 98121 TEL 206.493.2300 FAX 206.493.2310 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 The City's design consultant recommended an alternative building layout. The firm of Freedman Tung & Bottomley, the City's consultants for the Tukwila Urban Center Sub -Area Plan, reviewed the application for the City in the design review process. The City's consultant observed that the proposed building "creates an awkward relationship with the existing building located to the south /west of the site" [i.e., the building in which Jo -Ann's is located]. This is because the proposed building "interrupts a view of part of the existing building, specifically Joann Fabric, from Southcenter Parkway," because the proposed building "blocks visibility and access to Joann Fabric by placing its backside directly opposite its front door," and because the proposed pedestrian network "does not connect the proposed building to the existing ones." The City's consultant recommended changes to ensure that Mr. Decker's site plan contributes toward the vision being developed within the Tukwila Urban Center Sub -Area Plan, instead of undermining the Plan by creating unharmonious development. The City's consultant recommended reconfiguring Mr. Decker's building to an L- shaped layout that would lessen the visibility and access obstructions in front of the Jo -Ann's store. But the BAR did not really consider this alternative design. Why not? The BAR simply accepted at face value the applicant's assertions that implementation of the alternative building layout was impossible because it required changes in the landscaping and parking lot of the adjacent Park Place Shopping Center. The Staff Report to the City Council submitted in response to this appeal echoes the BAR's assumption without critically examining it: In fact, the BAR did not require the applicant to redesign the site in the way recommended by Staff and suggested by the City's design review consultant because that layout required an additional access point outside of the common access drive easement.... The BAR decided not to pursue a change in the site plan shifting the building toward the street because the redesign was based on an action from ING that was beyond the Board's ability to require. Mentor Law Group, PLLC 1100 Market Place Tower JO -ANN'S PREHEARING BRIEF 4 2025 First Avenue Seattle, Washington 98121 TEL 206.493.2300 FAX 206.493.2310 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 4 N -N(6‘) , 15 16 17 18 19 r 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Staff Report, January 26, 2005, p. 2 -3. The pre- hearing brief provided to the City Council by appellant CLPF- Tukwila, L.P. explains in detail why the assertion in the staff response is fundamentally wrong: the owner of the Park Place Shopping Center would allow a curb cut to achieve a better development, but no one ever asked for it. Indee) the evidence in the record before the Council shows that the BAR made no real inquiry about whether the owner of the Park Place Shopping Center would be willing to make changes to its property to accommodate the consultant's recommended alternative building layout. In short, the BAR's mistaken assumption is not supported by the evidence in the record. The City Council should not compound the mistake by ignoring material evidence regarding the feasibility of the consultant's recommended alternative building layout. he appropriate inquiry should be made. The City Council now has before it the assurance by the shopping center owner that it would be amenable to making a cut in the landscape island between two parking areas in order to accommodate the alternative building design proposed by the City's consultant. In view of this significant material evidence, the Council should seize this opportunity to set the record straight, and to achieve Tukwila's design vision for the Tukwila Urban Center. The City Council should remand this application to the BAR for serious and careful consideration of the proposed alternative building layout, including evidence of the adjoining shopping center owner's willingness and ability to accommodate it. III. THE RULES APPLICABLE TO THE COUNCIL'S REVIEW. Jo -Ann Stores, Inc. agrees with the appellant CLPF - Tukwila, L.P., that the applicant bears the burden of proof in the City's Design Review process. JO -ANN'S PREHEARING BRIEF Mentor Law Group, PLLC 1100 Market Place Tower 5 2025 First Avenue Seattle, Washington 98121 TEL 206.493.2300 FAX 206.493.2310 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 The City's zoning code requires a clear demonstration of compliance with all the City's design review criteria. Those criteria require careful consideration of, among other things, pedestrian movement and safety; visual impact of parking and service areas; height and scale in relation to the site; landscape transition to adjoining properties; consistency with neighborhood character; compatibility of vehicular and pedestrian circulation patterns in terms of safety, efficiency, and convenience; screening of service yards and other unsightly places; and appropriate scale and harmony with neighboring developments. TMC Section 18.60.050(B). All of the criteria must be satisfied. Jo -Ann's Notice of Appeal addresses the proposal's failure to meet many of these criteria. Although the BAR is permitted to modify a "literal interpretation" of the design review criteria, it may do so only if such a modification would better implement the goals and policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan. TMC Section 18.60.050(A). The Tukwila Urban Center Goal 10.2 requires development to have an appropriate relationship to adjacent sites. That goal has not been met here. The BAR misapplied the design review criteria, resulting in a building that creates a long, dark, unfriendly alley between its backside and the neighboring Jo -Ann's store - a fact which was pointed out by the City's independent design consultant and acknowledged in the BAR's adopted findings and conclusions. Serious application of the City's design review criteria would require more careful consideration of the building's relationship to the Park Place Shopping Center in general and the Jo -Ann's store in particular. Mentor Law Group, PLLC JO -ANN'S PREHEARING BRIEF 6 1100 M 025 A Seattle, Washington 98121 TEL 206.493.2300 FAX 206.493.2310 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 IV. CONCLUSION On behalf of Jo -Ann Stores, Inc., we respectfully urge the City Council to reverse the BAR's approval and remand this application back to the BAR for further consideration. Dated this 2 nd day of March, 2005. MENTOR LAW GROUP, PLLC Sarah E. Mack, WSBA #12731 Joshua C. Allen Brower, WSBA #25092 Attorneys for Appellant Jo -Ann Stores, Inc. Mentor Law Group, PLLC 1100 Market Place Tower JO - ANN'S PREHEARING BRIEF 7 2025 First Avenue Seattle, Washington 98121 TEL 206.493.2300 FAX 206.493.2310 HILLIs CLARK MARTIN & PETERSON law office., HCMP Honorable Members Tukwila City Council 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 Dear Members of the Council: MBM:kat E -Mail: MBM @hcmp.com #297013 18438 -002 6d6d01!.doc TT �i MERITAS LAW FIRMS WORLDWIDE RECEIVEr MAR 0 2 2005 COMMUNiTY DEVELOPMENT March 2, 2005 Re: March 7, 2005 Appeal of the Design Review Approval for the Project at 17401 Southcenter Boulevard On behalf of the adjacent shopping center owner, we have appealed the design review approval for the new retail project at 17401 Southcenter Boulevard. Our appeal will be heard at the Council meeting on March 7. We have prepared the enclosed Pre - Hearing Brief for your review prior to that meeting. We look forward to your consideration of our appeal. Very truly yours, W z-acrit) A, )1/t. �cc Melody B. McCutcheon cc: Nora Gierloff Shelley M. Kerslake Henry C. Jameson Sarah Mack/ Josh Brower, Mentor Law Group Chris Roscoe and Chuck Wiegman, 1NG Clarion Partners Hand Delivered 500 Galland Building 1221 Second Avenue Seattle, Washington 98101 -2925 phone 206.623.1745 fax 206.623.7789 www.hcmp.com A PROFESSIONAL SERVICE CORPORATION 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 In re: BEFORE THE TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL Appeal of Design Review Approval for a Project at 17401 Southcenter Parkway I. INTRODUCTION Project File No.: L04 - 036 PRE - HEARING BRIEF OF APPELLANT CLPF - TUKWILA, L.P. The Appellant CLPF- Tukwila, L.P. owns the Park Place Shopping Center which is on three sides of the proposed development. Throughout Design Review, the owners and managers of the shopping center expressed their concerns that the proposed development was poorly oriented and created adverse impacts on the shopping center. They were not alone in reaching this conclusion. The independent design consultant hired by the City to review the project also described the many problems with the proposal, stating that its site plan had a "poor relationship with existing building" [that being the Park Place Shopping Center] and "no contribution to street frontage." See August 19, 2004 Staff Report, Attachment F, Exhibit ( "Ex. ") 13, a copy of which is attached to this brief. Unfortunately, the applicant would not consider different layouts that would eliminate those adverse impacts, such as the layout recommended by the City's design consultant. Given the importance of this matter, we ask the City Council to send this project back to the Board of Architectural Review ( "BAR ") so that alternative layouts can receive the scrutiny they deserve. Pre - Hearing Brief - Page 1 of 11 ORIGINAL 1 CLARK MARTIN & PETERSON, P.S. 500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Ave Seattle WA 98101 -2925 206.623.1745; fax 206.623.7789 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Pre - Hearing Brief - Page 2 of 11 II. THE STANDARDS THAT APPLY TO THIS APPEAL The City's code establishes the burden of proof in Design Review proceedings. Section 18.60.050 states that: "The applicant shall bear the full burden of proof that the proposed development plans satisfy all of the criteria." The code also requires the BAR decision to be "based on a clear demonstration of compliance with all of the guidelines of this chapter [Chapter 18.60 on Board of Architectural Review, including Design Review Criteria]." Section 18.60.030 B (emphasis added). Page two of the staff response to the appeals states that the "clear demonstration of compliance" refers only to the completeness of the application. However, that interpretation is not consistent with the plain words of the code. The code requires clear compliance will all of Chapter 18.60, and that chapter includes the substantive Design Review Criteria. Therefore, the applicant has the burden of proof, and the BAR can only approve the development if there is a clear demonstration of compliance with all Design Review Criteria. As this is the standard for BAR approval, it is also the standard for City Council approval: to approve this development, the Council must conclude that the applicant has met his code - mandated full burden of proof to clearly show that all criteria are met. The record does not support such a conclusion, and a remand for further review is required. As explained in our Notice of Appeal, the BAR lowered the standards of approval below what the code requires. As the transcripts reveal, because the applicant was required to come to three BAR meetings, the Board seemed to feel hamstrung to approve the project in deference to the applicant. However, it is clear that the need for three meetings was not the BAR's fault, but was due to the applicant not providing required or complete information, and the applicant's fundamental refusal to address the flaws in the proposed site layout. At the final meeting, several BAR members noted that the applicant had just barely met minimum City criteria. As summarized by a BAR member, the project just "crept over the threshold of minimum acceptability." Transcript of November 18, 2004 BAR meeting, Ex. 4, p. 7. The BAR's approach of "bare minimum is good enough" failed to apply the burden of proof mandated by the code. The Council needs to insist that City standards are met. HILLIS CLARK MARTIN & PETERSON, P.S. 500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Ave Seattle WA 98101 -2925 206.623.1745; fax 206.623.7789 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Pre - Hearing Brief - Page 3 of 11 Finally, the code does not assign any weight to, or require that any deference be given to, the BAR decision. Therefore, the Council is able to start afresh and decide for itself if the applicant has met his full burden of proof to show clear compliance with all City standards. III. REASONS WHY BOARD APPROVAL SHOULD BE OVERTURNED AND THE PROJECT REMANDED FOR FURTHER REVIEW A. The Record Lacks the Required Findings and Conclusions. The City's code requires that: "The BAR render a written decision, including findings of fact and conclusions." Section 18.108.040 C. There is no such document in the record. Rather, at the last meeting, all the BAR did was pass a motion approving the project "with staff's findings and conclusions and the recommendation called out in the staff report." Transcript of November 18, 2004 BAR meeting, Ex. 4, p. 9. What is wrong with that approach? Several things. This is not a circumstances where there is a single comprehensive staff report that the BAR can merely adopt as its own, under TMC 18.112.050 B. Unlike that circumstance, there were three different staff reports prepared on this project, and the BAR did not adopt any specific staff report. If the last staff report had been a comprehensive analysis of the project (rather than what it was, a partial analysis of some limited additional issues), and if the BAR had specifically adopted only the last staff report (which they did not), then maybe one could argue that the code requirement was met because it would be clear what specific findings and conclusions the BAR agreed with in the staff reports. However, neither of those predicate "ifs" were satisfied here. Second, because the BAR adopted all three staff reports and those staff reports conflict with each other, it is not possible to tell how the BAR resolved the conflicts and reached its own findings and conclusions. It does not matter if the reports "build on each other" when the various reports conflict with each other. The staff response to the appeals recognizes the possibility of confusion and recommends that Council have staff prepare a new written decision. However, the time for a clearly reasoned decision is not at the end of the Council HILLIS CLARK MARTIN & PETERSON, P.S. 500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Ave Seattle WA 98101 -2925 206.623.1745; fax 206.623.7789 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 ..✓ 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Pre - Hearing Brief - Page 4 of 11 process, but is at the end of the BAR process, so that on appeal all parties know what the BAR found and concluded. Without this in the BAR record, the Council review is severely hampered, and this issue alone is enough to justify a remand to the BAR. Here are just two examples of what the Council faces in trying to figure out the BAR's ultimate findings and conclusions: Example One: A critical issue to the Park Place Shopping Center is that the project does not comply with the City's Design Review Criteria on "Relationship of Structure and Site to Adjoining Area," specifically the requirements in Section 18.60.050 B2a and 4b that there be a harmonious relationship between the proposal and neighboring developments. What did the Board find on the critical issue of compliance with these criteria? You cannot tell. There are no findings on these criteria in the final staff report. See Staff Report for the November 18, 2004 BAR meeting, Ex. 3, pages 5 and 8. The October staff report describes some modifications made to the south and west facades of the building, but there is no finding of compliance with the Design Review Criteria in that report. Therefore, we have to go to the original Staff Report prepared August 19, 2004. On page 7 of that report, staff states the finding that the west side of the building created an "alley like area between its rear and the adjacent property's building front" and that "The placement of the structure ignores the adjacent building to the southwest." (The adjacent building is the Park Place Shopping Center, specifically, the tenant in that location is JoAnn's Fabrics.) Therefore, the finding in this Staff Report seems to be that the building does not meet these Design Review Criteria, and this is not modified by any findings to the contrary in the two staff reports that followed it. Therefore, how can the Council tell what the BAR's specific written findings are on the critical requirement of a harmonious relationship with the adjoining area? There is no overall finding that states the proposal clearly complies with this criterion, and the staff reports adopted by the BAR are incomplete or imply that the project does not meet City HILLIS CLARK MARTIN & PETERSON, P.S. 500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Ave Seattle WA 98101 -2925 206.623.1745; fax 206.623.7789 28 *d Pre - Hearing Brief - Page 5 of 11 standards. Based on this faulty record, the Council is not in a position to conclude the applicant has met his burden to show clear compliance with all City standards. Example Two: Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan is a required element of the BAR decision pursuant to Section 18.100.030. Both the August 19 and October 6, 2004 Staff Reports (adopted by the BAR) discuss the Comprehensive Plan and have an identical conclusion that the project does not comply with the Comprehensive Plan: "Modifications to the site and some of the improvements are necessary in order for the proposal to be in harmony with neighboring uses and to maximize pedestrian safety and convenience." Staff Report, August 19, 2004, Ex. 13, p. 13, and Staff Report, October 6, 2004, Ex. 7, p. 15. The third staff report, dated November 4, 2004, Exhibit 3, does not have any conclusions about the Comprehensive Plan. Therefore, since the only conclusion in the staff reports is that the project does not comply with the Comprehensive Plan, and these staff reports were adopted unchanged by the Boards' own findings and conclusions, the BAR has actually adopted conclusions that the project does not comply with the Comprehensive Plan. (It is noteworthy that the staff response to appeals does not address this point. Presumably, they plan to "fix" this problem in the new decision they want to prepare.) If the BAR did reach a conclusion that the project complied with the Comprehensive Plan, they would have needed to make this explicit. In fact, this is the very reason to have the BAR adopt its own written findings and conclusions. The BAR's failure to adopt its own written findings and conclusions means that the project must be remanded to them for further review and compliance with City procedural requirements. This is important not just for the overall integrity of the City process, but it is important in this case in particular, so that the parties know specifically what the BAR found and concluded. HILLIS CLARK MARTIN & PETERSON, P.S. 500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Ave Seattle WA 98101 -2925 206.623.1745; fax 206.623.7789 B. Even Without the Required Written Findings and Conclusions, It Is Apparent the Project Does Not Meet the City's Design Review Criteria. The concerns with project compliance implicate many of the City's Design Review Criteria in Section 18.60.050 B, since the subject matter of the various criteria overlap. For purposes of this brief, we synthesize our concerns around the following three topics: 1. The Proposal Does Not Comply with the Requirement to Provide a Desirable Transition with the Streetscape. Design Review Criteria 1 a states the site "should be planned to accomplish a desirable transition with streetscape." The proposal does not comply with this criteria because the building would be set back 75 feet from Southcenter Parkway, with the front of the building dominated by a parking area. August 19, 2004 Staff Report, p. 4, and its Attachment F, Ex. 13. The City's independent design consultant called this site plan "No Contribution to Street Frontage" and noted that the proposed layout created a lack of "edge" along the street, reduced visibility of the adjacent retail uses in the Park Place Shopping Center, and left "the public sidewalk stranded between two auto - oriented environments" creating a "poor pedestrian environment along the public right of way ...." Attachment F, pp. 1 -2. The City's consultant recommended an alternative building and parking layout that would create a good relationship with the street, detailing the reasons why that alternative would be better while still meeting the applicant's design program. Attachment F, p. 2. As the proposal does not comply with Design Review Criteria la, the Council should remand the decision to the Bar for further consideration of alternative site layouts. 2. The Proposal Does Not Comply with Requirements for Harmonious Relationships to Adjoining Structures. Design Review Criteria 2a and 4b both require that buildings be "in harmony with permanent neighboring developments." Goal 1.7 of the City's Comprehensive Plan also refers to creating "harmony with adjacent uses." The proposal does not comply with this standard because the building is oriented in a linear fashion parallel to Southcenter Parkway with the result that it significantly impairs visibility of the Park Place Shopping Center tenants from Southcenter Parkway. The importance of such visibility for retail tenants was Pre - Hearing Brief - Page 6 of 11 HILLIS CLARK MARTIN & PETERSON, P.S. 500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Ave Seattle WA 98101 - 2925 206.623.1745; fax 206.623.7789 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 acknowledged by staff as being an appropriate part of the analysis of criterion 2a (see August 19, 2004 Staff Report, Ex. 13, p. 11), and it was also considered appropriate by the City's design consultant (see discussion above) in considering the effect a new building will have on an existing built environment. In fact, it is obvious that visibility from Southcenter Parkway is very important to the applicant as well. However, the BAR summarily dismissed the visibility of the shopping center as irrelevant because they mischaracterized it as a "view issue." For example, at the October 14, 2004 Board meeting, a BAR member spoke at length on this topic and said: "Visibility of JoAnn's — that's not our problem. We are not there to protect visibility. We don't protect views in this City, we cannot approve views from one building to another. That's not a function of our business here .... We do not protect views in any case." Transcript of October 14, 2004 BAR meeting, Ex. 8, p. 39. That shut down further discussion of the issue. However, the BAR mistakenly confused the issue of visibility of a business from Southcenter Parkway with the issue of protection of views from a building. Because the BAR did not interpret or apply this criterion correctly, their analysis is flawed. The City staff and consultant were right: visibility of a retail business from a major street is an appropriate consideration in site planning to create harmony between a proposal and adjacent buildings as required by the Design Review Criteria and Comprehensive Plan. Again, the alternative site layout generated by the City's design consultant (Attachment F) addressed this issue, and the BAR erred in not considering it. In staff's response to the appeals, they acknowledge that the consultant's alternative reduces the view impairment of JoAnn's from Southcenter Parkway by 60 feet (30 feet of overlap between the new building and JoAnn's with the consultant's proposal as compared to 90 feet of overlap with the applicant's proposal). However, staff minimizes that difference by saying that in any case, visibility of JoAnn's from Southcenter Parkway would be less than with the existing restaurant. What staff ignores is that an increase of 60 feet of visibility is Pre - Hearing Brief - Page 7 of 11 HILLIS CLARK MARTIN & PETERSON, P.S. 500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Ave Seattle WA 98101 -2925 206.623.1745; fax 206.623.7789 28 Pre - Hearing Brief - Page 8 of 11 very important to JoAnn's. The benefits of an alternative layout cannot be ignored or minimized. There are other specific reasons why the proposal is inconsistent with Design Review Criteria la and 4b on harmonious relationships with adjoining structures, as detailed in the appeal filed by JoAnn's Fabrics. The Park Place Shopping Center agrees with the concerns expressed by JoAnn's and asks the Council to consider those specific points as well. 3. The Proposal Does Not Comply with the Requirement to Provide Compatible Vehicular and Pedestrian Circulation. Design Review Criteria 2d requires that there be compatibility of circulation between the proposed development site and adjoining sites. Given the irregular nature of the proposed development site, the applicant encountered some difficulties here because of poor design in transitioning with the parking areas to the north and south, both of which are part of the Park Place Shopping Center and not on the applicant's property. Because of this, staff suggested that the applicant resolve these issues by making arrangements with the shopping center owners to have the Park Place Shopping Center change its landscaping and access areas. The applicant met with representatives of the Park Place Shopping Center, and then declared to staff and the BAR that the shopping center was "unwilling to work with" the applicant "in any form or fashion," and thus, that alternative layouts were not possible to implement. See transcript of September 16, 2004 BAR meeting, Ex. 14, p. 14, and transcript of October 14, 2004 BAR meeting, Ex. 10, p. 10. That was not an accurate description of the conversations. Instead, the shopping center said it would not make changes to its property to accommodate the applicant's building layout — a layout that clearly harmed the shopping center property. As the applicant refused to consider alternative layouts, the parties never discussed whether changes could be made to the shopping center property to accommodate the consultant's recommended building layout. The applicant's mistaken summary of the conversations with the shopping center worked its way into the thinking of staff and the BAR. With the staff' s response to appeals, we see for the first time the confusion the applicant created for the staff and the BAR. The HILLIS CLARK MARTIN & PETERSON, P.S. 500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Ave Seattle WA 98101 -2925 206.623.1745; fax 206.623.7789 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Pre - Hearing Brief - Page 9 of 11 staffs response (pages 2 and 3) states that the consultant's recommended layout cannot be implemented because it would require a cut through the landscape island on the shopping center property in order to connect the existing and proposed parking areas. As evidence of the shopping center's refusal to allow this cut in the landscape island, staff quotes from comments made by a shopping center representative, Mr. Chuck Wiegman, at the September 16, 2004 meeting about "no build" clauses in existing leases. However, Mr. Wiegman's comment that certain changes were not possible was about the different topic of a land swap that would have enabled the applicant's building to be entirely parallel to Southcenter Parkway, but for the "no build" restrictions. Mr. Wiegman's comments were not about the cut in the landscape island necessary to implement the consultant's recommended layout. The cut in the landscape island for an alternative layout had never been discussed between the applicant and the shopping center because the applicant refused to consider an alternative layout. If the Council requires the building layout recommended by the City's consultant, then the shopping center is amenable to making the cut in the landscape island between the two parking areas. This removes any impediment to implementing the consultant's recommended layout. It must be acknowledged that the issue of circulation between the proposed development site and the Park Place Shopping Center has not been adequately addressed in the applicant's proposal, and the alternative layout recommended by the City's design consultant goes a long way toward addressing those issues. In that regard, it is noteworthy that the applicant downplays the consultant's alternative layout, calling it a mere "sketch." It is ironic the applicant could fault the consultant for lack of a detailed layout, when it was the applicant's refusal to consider an alternative that stopped the consideration of alternatives in its tracks. C. There Was Inadequate Consideration of Alternative Site Layouts. We have pointed out several times that our concerns about the proposed development were not ours alone. The City's independent design consultant separately identified the same HILLIS CLARK MARTIN & PETERSON, P.S. 500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Ave Seattle WA 98101 -2925 206.623.1745; fax 206.623.7789 28 Pre - Hearing Brief - Page 10 of 11 concerns, and as a result, recommended an alternative layout. What happened to that recommendation? A close scrutiny of the record answers that question. Staff initially had some of the very same concerns with the poor design of the proposed development. Early emails in the file, such as the one to the applicant on July 7, 2004, reveal that concern. In early August 2004, the City retained an independent design consultant to review the proposal. The consultant immediately wrote the City to say: "Obviously, this plan has some problems from an urban design perspective." Email to Moira Bradshaw from Hiro Sasaki, AICP, dated August 9, 2004. The consultant firm of Freedman Tung & Bottomley did a detailed study, and presented their findings. This became Attachment F to the August 19, 2004 Staff Report. As a result of the concerns over the project, staff recommended that the BAR meeting and public hearing scheduled for August be continued to allow them to work with the applicant on alternatives, and the meeting/hearing was continued. Given cancellation of the meeting/hearing, the BAR did not at that time have any discussion of layout alternatives. When the Board did convene for its public meeting/hearing on September 16, 2004, the issue of the consultant's alternative was raised by a BAR member expressing interest in seeing alternatives. Unfortunately, that interest was shut down as staff advised they had already discussed the issue at length with the applicant, and "The applicant is unwilling to modify the layout of the building." Staff noted that given that position, they had made "minor modifications to the building" to make it better. Transcript of September 16, 2004 BAR meeting, Ex. 14, p. 36. After being told by the staff that the applicant would not consider different layouts, and after mistakenly being told by the applicant that the shopping center would not cooperate in discussing alternatives, there was no further BAR discussion at the meeting of the independent consultant's recommendations or alternative layouts. Then, again, at the October BAR meeting, the BAR was mistakenly given the impression that the shopping center would not cooperate in considering changes to its property to implement the consultant's recommended building layout. HILLIS CLARK MARTIN & PETERSON, P.S. 500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Ave Seattle WA 98101 -2925 206.623.1745; fax 206.623.7789 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DATED this The applicant's refusal to consider alternatives did not uphold the City's requirements for good design and consistency with the Design Review Criteria. It is the applicant who has the full burden to show clear compliance with City standards. That did not happen here. The staff and BAR settled for "minor building modifications" that made the building somewhat better, allowing the applicant "to just eek over the edge of design review at the minimum criteria." Transcript of November 18, 2004 BAR meeting, Ex. 4, p. 7. The public deserves a more robust examination of alternatives, if Design Review is to be meaningful. IV. CONCLUSION The Park Place Shopping Center respectfully requests that the City Council overturn the BAR's approval of the project, and remand the matter back to the BAR for consideration of alternative layouts. We appreciate your consideration of this appeal. #294162 18438 -002 6 @z601 !.doc 3/2/2005 Pre - Hearing Brief - Page 11 of 11 day of March, 2005. Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson, P.S. B Melody B. cCutchei 8112 Attorneys for Appellant CLPF - Tukwila, L.P. HILLIS CLARK MARTIN & PETERSON, P.S. 500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Ave Seattle WA 98101 -2925 206.623.1745; fax 206.623.7789 t • It creates a lack of "edge" along the street. A distinct street wall is a key part of the vision for an active retail and entertainment corridor, and a building wall, rather than a parking lot, is necessary to define the street wall along the Southcenter Parkway. • It reduces the visibility of the retail located to the south/west of the site. This could encourage retailers to install freestanding and pole- mounted signs along Southcenter Parkway to supplement the lack of visibility to their storefronts, an image that is in keeping with the typical auto-oriented suburban strip, and not consistent with the vision for the Tukwila Urban Center. • It leaves the public sidewalk stranded between two auto - oriented environments, Southcenter Parkway and the parking lot. This results in a poor pedestrian environment along the public right of way where pedestrians are exposed to heavy fast - moving traffic and do not feel safe on the sidewalk. Recommendations In order to improve the issues caused by the proposed layout discussed above, reconfiguration of the proposed building is recommended. Given the constraints of parcel size and shape, however, possible reconfiguration alternatives of the building are limited. The illustration (Figure -2) shows a suggested site layout that would address the issues noted above while maintaining what we understand to be the developer's primary requirements for redevelopment. The recommendations associated with this layout are: 1. Create a Good Relationship with Existing Building The proposed I -shape layout removes visibility and access obstructions to Joann Fabric. This suggested L-shape layout establishes a seamless pedestrian network from the new building to existing ones, providing connectivity and enhancing the likellhood that shoppers will move from one establishment to another. In order to provide further incentive for pedestrian movement between stores, we would recommend widening the pedestrian path from the proposed five or six feet to eight feet at a minimum 2. Contribute to the Creation of Street Frontage The suggested L-shape layout addresses the issues caused by poor street frontage. The major benefits are as follows; • The new building frontage along Southcenter Parkway marks the edge of the site and delineates the street wall, thereby contributing to the urban corridor environment envisioned by the Tukwila Urban Center Subarea Plan. • The new building frontage improves the visibility of both the new retail building and of the existing one located to its southwest. This creates an opportunity to add a corner tower at a corner of the new building along Southcenter Figure -2: Diagram of site layout recommendation Parkway, providing a highly visible location for signage that takes advantage of the gentle curve of the front street at the site. Such a comer tower would be just as visible, more recognizable, and more attractive than the usual freestanding signs along the street The new layout enables the building to face its storefront on Southcenter Parkway, thereby improving the comfortability of the public sidewalk while also contributing to pedestrian activity on the sidewalk. In addition, we would also recommend relocation of the existing sidewakc inward from Southcenter Parkway along the new building edge to allow for the provision of a landscaped planting strip between pedestrians and fast - moving traffic. Background MEMORANDUM To: Mayor Mullet and Members of the City Council From: Steve Lancaster, Director of Community Development Subject: Staff Response to Appeals of Board of Architectural Review Decision on L04 -036 the SC -3 Retail Building Date: January 26, 2005 Hearing Date: February 7, 2005 File Numbers: L04 -082 Jo -Ann Stores Appeal L04 -083 ING Appeal Applicant: Brad Decker, DDCI Appellants' Request: Remand the project back to the BAR for further consideration of alternative layouts. Location: 17401 Southcenter Parkway Staff: Nora Gierloff, Planning Supervisor FINDINGS On November 18,2004 the Board of Architectural Review (BAR) granted design approval for a strip retail building on the site of the existing Winners Restaurant at 17401 Southcenter Parkway. The original proposal for a single story retail building with accessory parking, landscaping, loading, and trash/recycling was revised at the 9/16/04 hearing and again at the continued 10/14/04 hearing before being approved. The approved design is shown at Attachment B to the second supplemental staff report at Exhibit 3. The BAR based its decision on the criteria given at TMC 18.60 and on the findings and conclusions contained in the staff reports, see Exhibits 3, 7 and 13. Two notices of appeal of the BAR's decision were filed within the 21 day appeal period by attorneys representing JoAnn Stores and ING Real Estate. These are attached as Exhibits 1 and 2. These notices were mailed to parties of record, the BAR and the City Council on December 15, 2004. Notice of the appeal hearing was mailed on January 19 and published and posted on January 21St Staff Report: Appeal of L04 -036 SC -3 Design Review Page 2 Under the Zoning Code only one open record public hearing on a permit is allowed. This was the BAR hearing (which was kept open and continued twice) so the appeal hearing to the City Council is required to be closed record. This means that no new evidence or testimony may be presented, all arguments must be based on the hearing record, and only parties to the appeal may address the Council (appellants, the applicant, and staff). The scope of the appeal is limited to issues raised in the notices of appeal. The City Council's role is to decide if the BAR made a proper decision to approve the design based on the information in the hearing record including the staff report and attachments, items presented at the meeting and testimony by staff, the applicant and the public. The City Council may adopt as its own, all or portions of the BAR findings and conclusions. In the event the City Council determines that it lacks adequate information on which to make findings of fact necessary to its decision, the City Council may remand the project back to the BAR with instructions to reopen the public hearing to take additional testimony and provide the BAR findings on the factual issues identified by the City Council as requiring such additional information (TMC 18.112.050). Following are condensed restatements of the issues raised by the appellants, followed by Staff's response. Since the issues raised in the Jo -Ann and 1NG appeals are so similar the issues and responses have been combined. For the full text of the appeals see Exhibits 1 and 2. Analysis Appeal Issue #1: The BAR applied the wrong standard to the proposal. They should have required a clear demonstration of compliance with the guidelines rather than the lower standard of meeting the minimum criteria. Members of the BAR stated that they thought that the proposal met the minimum standards in the design review criteria. Whether the applicant clearly demonstrated compliance (TMC 18.60.030 B) has to do with the completeness and consistency of the drawings that formed the basis of the application. The drawing set attached to the final staff report (Exhibit 3 B) clearly describes the proposed building and site improvements. Appeal Issue #2: The BAR improperly shifted the burden of proof. The appellants contend that the BAR approved the project because they were "worn down by the Applicant's refusal to redesign the Proposal consistent with the City's independent design consultant's recommendations." See page 4 of Exhibit 1. In fact, the BAR did not require the applicant to redesign the site in the way recommended by Staff and suggested by the City's design review consultant because that layout required an additional access point outside of the common access drive easement, see Exhibit 13 E for the extent of the common easement. See the FTB diagram at Exhibit 13 F (reproduced below with emphasis added) showing the cut through the landscape island necessary to access the aisle of parking adjacent to Southcenter Parkway from the south. Staff Report: Appeal of L04 -036 SC -3 Design Review Page 3 At the 9/16/04 hearing Chuck Wigman speaking on behalf of the surrounding property owners stated that "frankly we can't really ... work in conjunction with something that's going to put a building in an area on the leases that would have shown as a `no- build' clause." See page 17 of Exhibit 14. The BAR decided not to pursue a change in the site plan shifting the building toward the street because the redesign was based on an action from ING that was beyond the Board's ability to require. At the 10/14/04 hearing Boardmember Meryhew stated "I'm not sure that you can get the applicant and the other owners to agree. I think that's a major problem and therefore I think we ought to proceed without that agreement, but make sure that the safety issues are covered, without necessarily getting an agreement between any of the parties. Because it looks to me like that, ING and Borders and Jo -Ann's can effectively stop this thing by just, by just not agreeing..." See page 39 of Exhibit 8. Given the site layout, the BAR approved the project once they determined that the building design, landscaping and safety issues had been resolved. Appeal Issue #3: The BAR erred by failing to issue written Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law separate from the Notice of Decision. The BAR adopted the findings and conclusions contained in the staff report and this is noted in the Notice of Decision. They are not required to issue a separate document by the Tukwila Zoning Code. The City Attorney has reviewed this issue and finds that the BAR's action complied with the TMC requirements. Appeal Issue #4: The Applicant did not meet the City's design review criteria because the proposal does not: 1) moderate the visual impact of the parking, loading and service areas due to placement of the service area directly in front of Jo Ann Stores without any screening Staff Report: Appeal of L04 -036 SC -3 Design Review Page 4 The garbage and recycling collection area for the SC -3 building is proposed at the rear of the building, approximately 180 feet north of the entrance to the Jo -Ann Store and across from a parking area. It will be screened by a concrete wall and metal gate painted to match the building color. The loading spaces are at the northwest corner of the building, past the dumpster enclosure, see Sheet A1.0 of Exhibit 3 B. 2) provide adequate landscape transition to existing businesses including Jo-Ann Stores Below is a picture of the common access drive between the Winners Restaurant and the Park Place building, the picture is from staff's powerpoint presentation at 9/16/04 hearing. The width of the driveway will be maintained, however there will be a row of parking on the left starting at approximately the curb line and then 20 feet back will be the SC -3 building wall. The applicant has proposed to provide 614 square feet of landscaping in six landscape islands of various sizes along the rear of the building. The landscape architect has specified some plants such as heavenly bamboo, katsura trees and vibernum that are also used in the landscape areas around the Park Place Shopping Center, see the landscape plan in Exhibit 3 B and narrative at Exhibit 3 p. 5. 3) ensure consistency with neighborhood character by being too close to existing structures and blocking views of the Jo-Ann store from Southcenter Parkway No point of the SC -3 building will be within 60 feet of any structure, including the Jo- Ann Store due to a no -build easement, see dashed line on grading plan set in Exhibit 3 B. The existing Winners Restaurant is between the Jo -Ann Store and Southcenter Parkway, with the southern edge of the restaurant approximately even with the northern edge of the Jo -Ann Store, see aerial photo at Exhibit 16. The SC -3 building would extend about 90 feet further south than Winners while the conceptual site plan suggested by FTB, the City's design consultant would have the building extend about 30 feet further than Winners, see Exhibit 13 F. However, the site concept suggested by FTB is just at the sketch stage and it does not give building square footage or parking calculations. Design development of this concept might well result in building dimensions different than those suggested. Under either of the site designs visibility of the Jo -Ann store by southbound drivers on Southcenter Parkway would be less than what currently exists with the Winners building. Staff Report: Appeal of L04 -036 SC -3 Design Review Page 5 Below is a picture of the view of the site by southbound traffic on Southcenter Parkway, the picture is from staff's powerpoint presentation at 9/16/04 hearing. . The SC -3 proposal would lower the site to be closer to the road elevation by removing approximately 3,000 cubic yards of fill, see Exhibit 3 B Grading Plan. 4) ensure compatibility of vehicular and pedestrian circulation patterns by eliminating existing parking used by adjacent businesses and forcing pedestrians to cross a common access drive to reach the Jo Ann Stores A parking area consisting of one double loaded and one single loaded aisle directly in front of the Jo -Ann Store and adjacent to the main Winners entrance would be displaced by the SC -3 building, see Exhibit 10. Jo -Ann customers who currently use this parking must cross the common access drive to reach the store entrance. Another, larger parking area north of the Jo -Ann store provides access to the store entrance without requiring pedestrians to cross the driveway and will not be affected by the SC -3 proposal, see approved site plan in Exhibit 3 B. 5) provide adequate screening of lighting by placing the back of the structure too close to Jo Ann Stores It is unclear what lighting the appellant is asking to be screened. The applicant provided a lighting diagram in Exhibit 13 I and fixture cut sheets as Exhibit 7 C and D. 6) ensure appropriate scale and harmony by being too close to Jo Ann Stores As noted above, the SC -3 building will be between 60 and 75 feet east of the Jo -Ann building for approximately 90 feet, Exhibit 3 B. The conceptual site plan that the appellants have requested that the BAR reconsider would not move the SC -3 building further away from Jo -Ann, but would reduce the length by approximately 60 feet, Exhibit 13 F. At approximately 18,700 square feet the SC -3 building would be larger than the Winners Restaurant, but significantly smaller than the main portion of the Park Place Shopping Center. It will be one story and the tops of the parapets will vary between 33 and 43 feet above the adjusted grade, Exhibit 3 B. Staff Report: Appeal of L04 -036 SC -3 Design Review Page 6 Conclusions Appeal Issue #1: The BAR concluded that the SC -3 proposal met the design review criteria. The final drawing set clearly describes the proposed building and site improvements. Appeal Issue #2: The BAR required that the project be redesigned to meet the design review criteria to the extent of its authority. The Board concluded that reconfiguring the building as recommended by staff required the cooperation of the surrounding property owner and tenants which was beyond their ability to compel. Appeal Issue #3: The BAR properly made a motion to adopt the findings and conclusions in the final staff report, which references the earlier analysis. See Exhibit 3 P. 9. Appeal Issue #4: 1) The SC -3 dumpster area will be screened and located away from the Jo -Ann Store entrance. 2) The proposed site plan exceeds landscape code requirements. The proposed plant palatte includes plants used on the Park Place property. 3) The alternate site plan suggested by FTB would not move the building further away from the Jo -Ann Store and would still block views by southbound traffic on Southcenter Parkway. 4) While the SC -3 project will displace parking that is convenient to the Jo -Ann Store, competition for that parking by Winners customers is high. Patrons will still have the option of using the northern parking area that does not require crossing the common driveway. 5) It is unclear what aspect of the lighting the appellant is objecting to and how the alternate site plan would remedy the issue. 6) While the SC -3 building is larger than the Winners Restaurant it replaces it is smaller than many nearby buildings. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council uphold the decision of the Tukwila BAR in case L04 -036 to approve the design of the SC -3 Retail Building and site. The redesign of the site plan that the appellants are requesting is only feasible if ING grants an additional access point to the lot, something that the BAR cannot require. There is no point to sending the project back to the BAR to modify the site plan if the applicant does not have the authority to implement the revision. Staff suggests that the Council direct staff to prepare a new consolidated Notice of Decision due to possible confusion about the BAR's fmdings and conclusions being contained in three staff reports. TABLE OF CONTENTS Index of Exhibits 1) Notice of Appeal by Jo -Ann Stores 2) Notice of Appeal by ING Real Estate 3) . Second Supplemental Staff Report dated 11/4/04 with Attachments: A. Applicant's Narrative Explaining Revisions in Response to 10/14 Hearing B. Revised Site Plan, Landscape Plan and Building Elevations C. Minutes of September 16, 2004 Meeting 4) Transcript of 11/18/04 Continued Hearing 5) Sign in Sheet from 11/18/04 Hearing 6) Letter from Melody McCutcheon representing Jo -Ann dated 11/18/04 Presented at Hearing 7) Supplemental Staff Report dated 10/6/04 with Attachments: A. Revised Site Plan/Building Elevations B. Sign Elevation C. Building Light Fixture D. Bollard Light Elevation E. Bench Elevation F. Trash Receptacle Elevation 8) Transcript of 10/14/04 Continued Hearing 9) Sign in Sheet from 10/14/04 Hearing — Unavailable and not included in binder 10) Photo Presented at 10/14/04 Hearing 11) Letter from Steve Brunette of ING dated 10/14/04 Presented at Hearing 12) Letter from Robert Icsman of Jo -Ann dated 10/14/04 Presented at Hearing 13) Staff Report dated 8/19/04 with Attachments: A. Applicant's response to Design Review criteria B. Determination of Nonsignificance C. Ethan Allen July 27, 2004 Letter D. JoAnn July 28, 2004 Letter E. Common Access Easement Map F. Design Peer Review by Freedman Tung & Bottomley G. Parking Light Luminaire H. Wall Luminaire I. Reduced Design Drawing Set 14) Transcript of 9/16/04 Hearing 15) Sign in Sheet from 9/16/04 Hearing 16) Reproductions of Boards Presented at 9/16/04 Hearing 17) Powerpoint Slides Presented at 9/16/04 Hearing 18) Letter from Chuck Wiegman of JSH dated 8/26/04 Presented at Hearing 19) Revised Site Plan and Elevation dated 9/15/04 20) Declaration of Common Parking Covenant Presented at 9/16/04 Hearing 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 In re: Appeal of Design Review Approval for a Project at 17401 Southcenter Parkway NOTICE OF APPEAL BEFORE THE TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL 1 No. Project File No.: L04 -036 NOTICE OF APPEAL RECEIVED irk OF TI fl<Wii c "ERMIT CENTS -k.. 1. NAME OF APPEALING PARTY: a. Jo -Ann Stores, Inc., an Ohio corporation registered to do business in the State of Washington (hereinafter "Jo -Ann Stores"). 2. ADDRESS AND ?HONE NUMBER OF APPEALING PARTY: a. Appealing Party's Address: Jo Ann Stores, Inc. c/o Robert D. Icsman, Senior Legal Counsel 5555 Darrow Road Hudson, Ohio 44236 Phone: (330) 463 -3409 Fax: (330) 463 -6660 Jo -Ann Stores is the Lessee of certain real property located at 17501 Southcenter Parkway, Tukwila, Washington. Jo -Ann Stores Mentor Law Group, PLLC 1100 Market Place Tower 2025 First Avenue Se attle Washington 98121 TEL 206.493.2300 FAX 206.493.2310 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 is located adjacent to (to the west), and behind the property that is the subject of this appeal. b. Name and Address of Contact Person Authorized to receive notices on appealing party's behalf: Jo -Ann Stores is represented in this matter by Sarah Mack and Joshua Brower of the Mentor Law Group, PLLC, whose address is: Sarah Mack and Joshua Brower Mentor Law Group, PLLC 1100 Market Place Tower, 2025 First Avenue Seattle, Washington 98121 Phone: (206) 493 -2300 Fax: (206) 493 -2310 3. DECISION BEING APPEALLED AND ALLEGED ERRORS IN THAT DECISION: a. Decision Being Appealed: Jo -Ann Stores is appealing the November 18, 2004 decision (the "Decision ") of the Tukwila Board of Architectural Review ("BAR ") approving the proposed retail building at 17401 Southcenter Parkway, Tukwila, Washington (the "Proposal "). The Tukwila Project File Number for the Proposal is L04- 036. Brad Decker, DDCI is the applicant ( "Applicant "). A copy of the BAR's Decision is attached hereto as Exhibit A. b. Alleged Errors In Decision: Jo Ann Stores alleges the following errors in the Decision: I. The BAR applied the wrong standard to the Proposal. The BAR incorrectly lowered the standards for City approval, allowing the Mentor Law Group, PLLC 1100 Market Price Tower 2 2025 First Avenue Seattle, Washinxton 98121 TEL 206.493.2300 FAX 20.493.2310 NOTICE OF APPEAL 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 / 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Applicant to barely "eek" past the City's approval criteria. Under the City's Code, the BAR's authority to grant design review approval must be "based on a clear demonstration of compliance with all of the guidelines of this chapter", not just a de minimus showing by the Applicant that the project does not violate the Code. See Tukwila Zoning Code, section 18.60.030 B (emphasis added). Jo -Ann Stores alleges that the BAR, instead of requiring the Applicant to clearly demonstrate compliance with all of the guidelines, applied a much lower standard by failing to consider alternative designs for the Proposal that would meet the City's design review criteria and cause less harm to Jo -Ann Stores. ii. The BAR improperly shifted the burden of proof. Pursuant• to the City's Code, the Applicant, not the City or its BAR, has the burden of proof to show compliance with the Code requirements. Section 18.60.050 of the City's Code states: "The applicant shall bear the full burden of proof that the proposed development plans satisfy all of the criteria." Here, the BAR erred by approving the Proposal without requiring the Applicant to meet its burden of proof. The BAR held three design hearings for the Proposal. The City's independent design consultant recommended changes to the Proposal that would have minimized impacts from the Proposal. The Applicant, however, refused to incorporate the suggested changes. The BAR approved the Proposal not because it met the City's Code requirements but because it was worn down by the Applicant's refusal to redesign the Proposal consistent with the City's independent design consultant's Mentor Law Group, PLLC NOTICE OF APPEAL 1100 Market Place Tower 3 2025 First Avenue Seattle, Washington 98121 TEL 206.493.2300 FAX 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 recommendations. In this way, the Applicant failed to meet its burden of proof. iii. The BAR erred by failing to issue written Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law; Section 18.108.040(C) of the City's Code requires the BAR to "render a written decision, including findings of fact and conclusions." The Department of Community Development is also required by that same Code section to then issue a Notice of Decision. In this case, the Department issued a Notice of Decision on November 19, 2004, but the BAR has not issued a written decision including findings of fact and conclusions of law. The reference in the Decision to "the staff report" is clearly inadequate to document the BAR's findings and conclusions because there were three separate staff reports for the Proposal, with differing conclusions. Lacking clear findings of fact and conclusions of law, the BAR's Decision is in error. iv. The Applicant did not meet the Citv's Design Review Criteria. Section 18.60.050(B) requires the Applicant demonstrate, among other requirements, that the Proposal: (1) provides adequate pedestrian movement ((B)(1)(a)); moderates the visual impact of parking and service areas ((B)(1)(b)); considers the height and scale of the Proposal in relation of the site ((B)(1) (c)); provides appropriate landscape transition to adjoining properties ((B)(2)(a)); ensures that public buildings and structures are consistent with established ncighborhood character ((B)(2)(c)); ensures the compatibility of vehicular and pedestrian circulation patterns and loading facilities in terms of safety, efficiency and convenience Mentor Law Group, PLLC NOTICE OF APPEAL 1100 Market Place Tower 4 2025 Firs. Avenue Seattle Washington 98121 TEL 206.493.2300 FAX 20-6.493,2310 ((B)(2)(d)); provides adequate screening of service yards and other unsightly places ((B)(3)(t)); provides adequate screening and shielding for lighting ((B)(3)(h)); and ensures buildings are of the appropriate scale and are in harmony with permanent neighboring developments ((B)(4)(b)). The Tukwila Urban Center (TUC) Zone, 'Goal 10.2 requires the Proposal to ensure an appropriate relationship to adjacent sites. In this case, the Applicant failed to meet these criteria because the Proposal: 1) does not provide adequate pedestrian movement as the new building is located too close to existing businesses (including Jo -Ann Stores) located in the Park Place Shopping Center and the Proposal will eliminate existing parking spaces used by said businesses (including Jo- Ann Stores), thereby forcing pedestrians to either park further from these existing businesses or forcing them to cross a common access drive to access these businesses including Jo -Ann Stores; 2) fails to moderate the visual impact of the parking and service areas by placing the Proposal's service area directly in front of the Jo -Ann Stores without any screening (i.e., Jo -Ann Stores will look directly at the Proposal's loading and trash areas); 3) fails to provide adequate landscape transition between the backside of the Proposal and existing businesses in NOTICE OF APPEAL 5 Mentor Law Croup, PLLC 1100 Market Place Tower 2025 First. Avenue Seattle, Was hin con 98121 TEL 206.493.230 FAX 20.493 /310 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 the Park Place Shopping Center (including Jo-Arm Stores); 4) fails to ensure the Proposal is consistent with established neighborhood character by being too close to existing structures and blocking visual access to existing structures and businesses (i.e., the Proposal will block views of the Jo -Ann Stores for customers on Southcenter Parkway); 5) fails to ensure compatibility of vehicular and pedestrian circulation patterns by eliminating existing parking, forcing customers to park away from existing businesses (including Jo -Ann Stores) and forcing pedestrians to cross a common access drive to access the Jo -Ann Stores; 6) fails to provide adequate screening of service yards and loading facilities by placing them directly in front of Jo- Ann Stores; 7) fails to provide adequate screening of lighting by placing the back of the proposed structure too close to the front of the Jo -Ann Stores; 8) fails to ensure appropriate scale and harmony with existing neighboring development by being too close to the Jo -Ann Stores; and 9) fails to ensure an appropriate relationship to adjacent site by blocking views of the Jo -Ann Stores for customers on Southcenter Parkway, by being too close Mentor Law Group, PLLC NOTICE OF APPEAL 1100 Market Place Tower 6 2025 First Avenue Seattle, Was hin con 98121 TEL 206.493.2300 FAX 20.493.2310 the Jo -Ann Stores and by eliminating existing parking used by Jo -Ann Stores customers, forcing them to park further away and /or cross a common access drive. c. Harm Suffered or Anticipated: Jo -Ann Stores will suffer harm from the Proposal because customers will not be able to see the store from Southcenter Parkway, thereby reducing business at Jo -Ann Stores; because customers will have to park further away from the store or cross a common access drive as the Proposal will eliminate parking currently used by Jo -Ann Store customers; because customers and employees of Jo - Ann Stores will have to look at the unscreened backside of the Proposal, including looking at unscreened loading and refuse areas; and because the proposed building is too close to the Jo -Ann Stores, making it incompatible with the existing neighborhood. d. Relief Sought: Jo -Ann Stores respectfully requests that the City Council remand this project to the BAR for further consideration of alternative layouts that clearly demonstrate compliance with the City's design review criteria and the Comprehensive Plan. DATED this IOth day of December, 2004. MENTOR LAW GROUP, PLLC NOTICE OF APPEAL Sarah E. Mack, WSBA #12731 Joshua C. Allen Brower, WSBA #25052 Attorneys for Appellant Jo - Ann Stores 7 Mentor Law Group, PLLC 1100 Market Place Tower 2025 First Avenue Seattle, Washington 98121 TEL 206.493.2300 FAX 20.493.1310 Comprehensive Plan Desienation/Zoning District: City of Tub Tukwila Urban Center NOTICE OF DECISION TO: Brad Decker, Applicant King County Assessor, Accounting Division Washington State Department of Ecology Puget Sound Clean Air Agency Catherine Drews, Foster Pepper & Shefelman Melody McCutchoon, Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson Steve Brunette, ING Real Estate • Robert Icsman, Jo -Ann Stores Inc. Chuck Wiegman, JSH Properties Brad Renner, Ethan Allen Service Center Dana Moore, Ethan Allen Bob Scofield I. PROJECT INFORMATION Steven M. Mullet, Ma• Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Direct November 19, 2004 RECEIVED NOV 2 2 2004 FOSTER, PEPPER & SHEFELMAN PLLC This letter serves as a notice of decision and is issued pursuant to TMC 18.104.170 on the following project and permit approval. Project File Number. L04 -036 Applicant Brad Decker, DDCI Type of Permit Applied for: Design Review Approval Project Description: Design approval for a revised one story retail building with associated site and landscape improvements. Location: 17401 Southcenter Parkway Associated Files: E04 - 012 SEPA Typo 4 Permit P 1 ftnif r II. DECISION • SEPA Determination: The City SEPA Responsible Official has determined. t hat the project, as prop osed, dots not create a probable significant environmental impact and issued a Determination of Non - Significance (DNS). Decision on Substantive Permit: The City Board of Architectural Review has determined that the application fora new retail building complies with applicable City and state code requirements and has approved that 'application based on the findings and conclusions contained in the staff reports. LI!. YOUR APPEAL RIGHTS The Decision an this Permit Application is a Type 4 decision pursuant to Tukwila Municipal Code 18.104.010. Other land use applications related to this project may still be pending. One administrative appeal to the City Council of the Board of Architectural Review Decision is permitted. No administrative appeal of a DNS or an EIS is permitted. IV. PROCEDURES AND TIME FOR APPEAI.1<NG In order to appeal the Board of Architectural Review decision on the Permit Application, a written notice of appeal must be filed with the Department of Community Development within 21 days of the issuance of this Decision, that is by December 10, 2004. The requirements for such appeals are set forth in Tukwila Municipal CodelS.l l6. All appeal materials shall be submitted to the Department of Community Development. Appeal materials MUST include: , 1. The name of the appealing party. 2. The address and phone number of the appealing party; and if the appealing party is a corporation, association or other group, the address and phone number of a contact person authorized to receive notices on the appealing party's behalf. 3. A statement identifying the decision being appealed and the alleged errors in the decision. 4. The Notice of Appeal shall identify (a) the specific errors of fact or errors in application of the law in the decision being appealed; (b) the harm suffered or anticipated by the appellant, and (c) the relief sought. The scope of an appeal shall be limited to matters or issues raised in the Notice of Appeal. V. APPEAL HEARINGS PROCESS The City Council hearing regarding the appeal shall be conducted as a closed record hearing before the Council based on the testimony and documentary evidence presented at the open record hearing conducted by the Board of Architectural Review. The City Council decision on the appeal is the City's final decision. Typo 4 Permit Page 2 r Any party wishing to challenge the City Council decision on this application must file an appeal pursuant to the procedures and time limitations set forth in RCW 36.70C. An appeal challenging a DNS, an MDNS or an EIS may be included in such an appeal. If no appeal of the tity Council decision is properly filed in Superior Court within such dine limit, the Decision on this permit will be final. VI. INSPECTION OF INFORMATION ON THE APPLICATION Project materials including the application, any staff reports, and other studies related to the permits are available for inspection at the Tukwila Department of Community Development, 6300 Southcenter Blvd., Suite 100, Tukwila, Washington 98188 from Monday through Friday between 8.30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. The project planner is Nora Gierloff, who may be contacted at 206 -433 -7141 for further information. Property owners affected by this decision may request a change in valuation for their property tax purposes. Contact the King County Assessor's Office for further information regarding property tax valuation changes. Department of Community Development City of Tukwila `rI Type 4 Permit Page 3 ksliso r 1_ EMI 0 z 10.••• • r 11M111111 Willi 1111 101 F.111 ;•r Zioit ma: i itlicarfl ilt n: 1111 iFiYill rink LSI L 1111111itki1.117 :1111 1 MI .:.,......! 911 ,..,., an 1111 :swim! 2 1 _ iii. I est 1 Auplimmi pal 131 — :=11, r• ' :1111110 II • 0 1 1' 1 1 rn 114,5M111111111032 --- owiLLmo • .0.00mires • f • • • 110 LairSlOt • MGM& Vft $0,00 • 000 as. 00.41 SC-3 RETAIL BUILDINe 17401 SOUNCENTER PARKWAY TUKWILA, WASHINGTON 1 2 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 In re: BEFORE THE TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL Appeal of Design Review Approval for a Project at 17401 Southcenter Parkway Project File No.: L04 -036 NOTICE OF APPEAL I. IDENTIFICATION OF APPELLANT AND DECISION BEING APPEALED 83iN30 r O07, 0 T V IIM)1I Il Q3A130 CLPF - Tukwila, L.P. hereby appeals the November 18, 2004 decision of the Board of Architectural Review ( "BAR ") approving the proposed retail building at 17401 Southcenter Parkway. CLPF - Tukwila, L.P. is the owner of the Park Place Shopping Center which surrounds the proposed building on the west, south, and north. The address and phone number for the appellant are: CLPF - Tukwila, L.P. c/o ING Clarion Partners 1001 Fourth Avenue Suite 3040 Seattle, WA 98154 (206) 622 -6778 The appellant in this proceeding is represented by Melody B. McCutcheon at the law firm of Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson, P.S. who shall serve as the contact person for the appellant for all further communications. The name and address to use as contact person is as follows: Design Review Appeal - Page 1 of 8 ORIGINAL HILLIS CLARK MARTIN & PETERSON, P.S. 500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Ave Seattle WA 98101 -2925 206.623.1745; fax 206.623.7789 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Melody B. McCutcheon Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson, P.S. 500 Galland Building 1221 Second Avenue Seattle, WA 98101 -2925 (206) 623 -1745 (telephone) (206) 623 -7789 (facsimile) The appellant will hereafter be referred to as the Park Place Shopping Center. II. INTRODUCTION The main issue in this appeal is the BAR's failure to consider alternative site layouts for the proposed building and parking areas that would meet the City's design review criteria and cause less harm to the Park Place Shopping Center. The City's own independent design consultant described the many problems with the proposed site plan, stating that the site plan had a "poor relationship with existing building" and "no contribution to street frontage." See August 19, 2004 Staff Report, Attachment F, page 1. By "existing building" the consultant was referring to the Park Place Shopping Center. The independent consultant develbped an alternative configuration for the building and parking area, and that alternative was supported by the Park Place Shopping Center and others in written and oral comment to the BAR. Unfortunately, however, that alternative was not given proper consideration by City staff or the BAR because the applicant refused to develop plans depicting that alternative. The BAR struggled with this applicant's proposal, requiring three separate meetings to consider the proposal. Only at the third meeting did the BAR consider the plans to be complete.' Several BAR members seemingly voted for approval because the applicant had to come to three meetings. The BAR recognized the shortcomings of the proposal, but reluctantly concluded that the BAR could not do more to require a better project. I For purposes of preparing this Notice of Appeal, we transcribed the tapes of the BAR meetings on this project, and that transcription is the basis for our summary of what was said or for quotes from the meetings. We understand City staff will be preparing its own transcription of the tapes for Council review. However, if that is not done, then our transcriptions will be provided to Council as part of the record. Design Review Appeal - Page 2 of 8 HILLIS CLARK MARTIN & PETERSON, P.S. 500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Ave Seattle WA 98101 -2925 206.623.1745; fax 206.623.7789 At the final approval meeting, several BAR members noted that the applicant had just barely met minimum City criteria. A BAR member summarized this by saying that the proposal "just eeked over the edge of design review at the minimum criteria." Transcript of November 18, 2004 BAR meeting. Another BAR member said: "I think that this project could have been much better than what it was or what it's going to be. It has met the minimum requirements and that's about all I can say." Id. In fact, however, the City's codes and criteria set a much higher standard for projects than that, and the Council needs to insist that the City's standards are upheld. III. ERRORS OF FACT AND LAW The BAR misunderstood the standard it should apply in reviewing the proposal, failed to issue written findings and conclusions as required by City code, inappropriately rejected consideration of impaired visibility to the Park Place Shopping Center, and failed to ensure that the project met the City's design review criteria and Comprehensive Plan. Each of these factors if further described below. A. THE BAR MISUNDERSTOOD THE CITY'S REVIEW STANDARDS. The deliberations of the BAR show that they were disappointed in the information provided by the applicant and were concerned that City standards were not met. However, because the applicant was required to come to three meetings (which one Board member commented "set a record" in terms of number of meetings), they seemed to feel they had to approve the project in deference to the applicant. However, the need for three meetings was not the BAR's fault, but was due to the applicant not providing required or complete information, and the applicant's inability to address the fundamental flaws with the proposed site layout. Nonetheless, given the number of meetings involved, the BAR was willing to lower the standards for City approval. As noted, several Board members believed that the proposal just barely met City standards. In taking this approach, the BAR misunderstood and did not correctly apply the Code standards for City design review. For example, the BAR's authority Design Review Appeal - Page 3 of 8 HILLIS CLARK MARTIN & PETERSON, P.S. 500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Ave Seattle WA 98101 -2925 206.623.1745; fax 206.623.7789 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 to grant design review approval must be "based on a clear demonstration of compliance with all of the guidelines of this chapter [Chapter 18.60 on Board of Architectural Review, including Design Review Criteria]." Tukwila Zoning Code, section 18.60.030 B (emphasis added). The Code requirement is obviously quite different from the standard the BAR did apply in this case, which was that the applicant had "eeked over the edge of minimum criteria." In addition, the City's Code does not put the burden on the City of proving compliance with City standards, but instead puts that burden squarely on the applicant. Section 18.60.050 of the City's Code states: "The applicant shall bear the full burden of proof that the proposed development plans satisfy all of the criteria." The BAR erred by not requiring the applicant to meet his Code - mandated full burden of proof to show that all criteria were satisfied. B. THE BAR FAILED TO ISSUE THE REQUIRED WRITTEN FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS. Section 18.108.040 C of the City's Code requires the BAR to "render a written decision, including findings of fact and conclusions." The Department of Community Development is also required by that same Code section to then issue a Notice of Decision. In this case, the Department issued a Notice of Decision on November 19, 2004, but the BAR has not issued a written decision. City staff may take the position that this Code requirement is complied with because at its final meeting the Board orally voted to approve the project "with staff's findings and conclusions and the recommendations called out in the staff report." Transcript of November 18, 2004 BAR Meeting. However, an oral decision does not comply with the Code. Moreover, as there were three separate staff reports for this project, with differing conclusions and analysis among them, the reference to "the staff report" is clearly inadequate to document the findings and conclusions of the BAR. For example, the August 19, 2004 Staff Report noted that the project was inconsistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan in several respects. However, the final staff report (dated November 4, 2004) did not contain any updated analysis of consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. Thus, BAR adoption of "the Design Review Appeal - Page 4 of 8 HILLIS CLARK MARTIN & PETERSON, P.S. 500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Ave Seattle WA 98101 -2925 206.623.1745; fax 206.623.7789 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 staff report" does not comply with the Code because consistency with the Comprehensive Plan is a required element of the BAR decision pursuant to Section 18.100.030 of the City's Code. This again illustrates that there is no clear decision document in this case. This issue is no small procedural matter. The obvious purpose of requiring the BAR decision to be in writing and to set forth findings of fact and conclusions is to have a clear record of what the BAR considered and what it concluded. Given the many public comments heard by the BAR regarding this project, it was to be expected that the BAR would reach its own conclusions and articulate the basis for City approval, rather than just adopting staff comments, some of which, perhaps, no longer applied. Without the required written decision, none of the parties, including the City Council, has a clear idea of specifically why the Board concluded (reluctantly) that this project met the City's design review criteria. All that any of us can do is to read the various staff reports and review transcripts of the BAR meetings to try to discern the BAR's findings and conclusions. That method of decision making is flawed both procedurally and substantively, and by itself, is enough to require a remand to the BAR for preparation of written findings and conclusions as required by City Code. C. THE BAR ERRONEOUSLY BELIEVED IT COULD NOT CONSIDER THE IMPAIRED VISIBILITY OF THE PARK PLACE SHOPPING CENTER. The Park Place Shopping Center and one of its tenants attended the BAR meetings, commented orally, and 'submitted letters expressing their concerns with the proposal. One of those concerns was that the proposal significantly blocks the visibility of JoAnn's Fabrics Store from Southcenter Parkway. These comments were directly related to specific design review criteria in Section 18.60.050 B of the City's Code , i.e. the "Relationship of Structure to Site" and "Relationship of Structure and Site to Adjoining Area." However, the BAR misinterpreted the comments on visibility and thus did not give proper weight to those comments. At the October 14, 2004 Board meeting, a BAR member spoke at length on this topic and said: "Visibility of JoAnn's — that's not our problem. We are not there to protect visibility. We don't protect views in this City, we cannot approve views from one building to Design Review Appeal - Page 5 of 8 HILLIS CLARK MARTIN & PETERSON, P.S. 500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Ave Seattle WA 98101 -2925 206.623.1745; fax 206.623.7789 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 another. That's not a function of our business here. ... We do not protect views in any case." Transcript of October 14, 2004 BAR Meeting. The BAR mistakenly confused the issue of visibility of a business from Southcenter Parkway with the issue of protection of views from a building. Moreover, visibility of businesses along Southcenter Parkway is most certainly a part of the City's design review criteria cited above, and part of the analysis of consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. Comprehensive Plan Goal 1.7, applicable to all Commercial Areas, calls for "harmony with adjacent uses." In discussing the design review criteria of "Relationship of Structure and Site to Adjoining Area," staff stated: "The proposed plan does not establish a harmonious relationship with the adjacent site. The lay out of the subject site seems to ignore the adjacent site and the constraints imposed by the site itself." August 19, 2004 Staff Report, page 11. The BAR did not give proper weight to this issue and did not require alternative layouts that would have complied with the City's standards requiring a harmonious relationship to adjacent businesses. D. THE BAR ERRED IN CONCLUDING THAT THE PROPOSAL MET THE DESIGN REVIEW CRITERIA AND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND FURTHER ERRED BY NOT EVALUATING THE ALTERNATIVE - RECOMMENDED BY THE CITY'S INDEPENDENT CONSULTANT. The BAR expressed a number of concerns with whether the proposal adequately addressed the City's design review criteria. As the record of staff reports, comment letters, and transcripts of Board meetings indicate, the applicant tried to address these concerns in a piecemeal fashion with cosmetic improvements to the building lighting or landscaping. However, the Board fundamentally erred in not considering an alternative layout of the proposed building and parking area that would better address the concerns raised by the BAR and the public. That alternative layout, as recommended by the City's independent design consultant, better met the City's design criteria and Comprehensive Plan policies for the Tukwila Urban Center. See August 19, 2004 Staff Report, Attachment F, page 2. The Board erred by not insisting that this alternative be presented for evaluation by the staff and the BAR. Design Review Appeal - Page 6 of 8 HILLIS CLARK MARTIN & PETERSON, P.S. 500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Ave Seattle WA 98101 -2925 206.623.1745; fax 206.623.7789 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Further, the project that was approved does not comply with the City's design review criteria or Comprehensive Plan Policies. As noted above, no harmonious relationship has been achieved with adjacent uses. Also, in considering the design review criteria in Section 18.60.050 of the City's Code, the project as approved do not comply with several of those criteria. For example, "adequate pedestrian movement" has not been ensured and there are substantial access and parking issues that have not been addressed. The BAR could not have reasonably concluded that the project "ensures the compatibility of vehicular and pedestrian circulation patterns." The applicant's attempt to address this by moving the "front door" of his building to the south in some ways exacerbates the access and parking incompatibilities between the proposal and adjacent uses. Visual impacts have not been moderated, and landscaping "solutions" are inadequate to meet the City's design review criteria. IV. HARM SUFFERED OR ANTICIPATED BY APPELLANT The Park Place Shopping Center and its tenants will be harmed by City approval of the current proposal. As the property owner on all sides of the proposal, Park Place Shopping Center is uniquely affected by the proposed layout of the building and parking areas. The present proposal substantially decreases the visibility of the Park Place Shopping Center from Southcenter Parkway. In addition, it creates adverse effects on the building occupied by JoAnn's Fabrics by creating an alley -like condition at JoAnn's front door. Also, the proposal adversely affects access to our property and impairs use of the Park Place Shopping Center parking areas. The alternative layout recommended by the City's independent design consultant is a vastly superior layout that greatly reduces the harm that would be suffered or is anticipated to be suffered by the Park Place Shopping Center and its tenants. 1/ Design Review Appeal - Page 7 of 8 HILLIS CLARK MARTIN & PETERSON, P.S. 500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Ave Seattle WA 98101 -2925 206.623.1745; fax 206.623.7789 #290911 18438 -002 68gv01!.doc 12/10/2004 Design Review Appeal - Page 8 of 8 V. RELIEF SOUGHT The Park Place Shopping Center respectfully requests that the City Council remand this project to the BAR for further consideration of alternative layouts that clearly demonstrate compliance with the City's design review criteria and Comprehensive Plan. DATED this 10th day of December, 2004. Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson, P.S. B Lac-L- ,_ Abrit^ Melody B. 14cCutcheon, WSBA #18112 Attorneys for Appellant HILLIS CLARK MARTIN & PETERSON, P.S. 500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Ave Seattle WA 98101 -2925 206.623.1745; fax 206.623.7789 SC -3 RETAIL BUILDING Tukwila Urban Center Urban Design Review and Recommendations Review date August 13th, 2004 Prepared by Freedman Tung & Bottomley This memorandum is in response to the Site Plan submitted to the City of Tukwila for the SC -3 Retail Building proposed for 17401 Southcenter Parkway, Tukwila, Washington. As the City's consultants for the Tukwila Urban Center Sub -Area Plan, Freedman Tung & Bottomley is providing assistance to the City for this design review process to ensure that the site plan for the SC -3 Retail Building contributes toward the vision being developed for this area. The vision being developed within the Tukwila Urban Center Sub -Area Plan calls for an active retail and entertainment corridor along Southcenter Parkway, with strong connections between establishments and destinations. New development along the Parkway, including the SC -3 Retail Building proposed for the site, should reinforce this concept of an active corridor. The comments that follow recommend modifications to the site plan in the context of the overall vision for the Urban Center while still maintaining that we understand to be the developer's intent and requirements for redevelopment of the parcel. Issues of Current Site Plan 1. Poor Relationship with Existing Building The proposed site layout (Figure -1) creates a single "bar" building behind a bay ofparking. While this maximizes efficiency on the site, it creates an awkward relationship with the existing building located to the southwest of the site, as follows: • The proposed building interrupts a view of part of the existing building, specifically Joann Fabric, from Southcenter Parkway. • The proposed building blocks visibility and access to Joann Fabric by placing its backside directly opposite its front door. • The pedestrian network of the proposed site layout does not connect the proposed building to the existing ones. In addition, the pedestrian network within the project is an uncomfortable one - the proposed pedestrian path along the building is only five or six feet wide, which is too narrow to provide pleasant walking environment for customers. 2. No Contribution to Street Frontage In the proposed site layout, the proposed building is set back by about seventy-five from the front street, and a surface parking lot dominates the site edge along Southcenter Parkway. This layout creates three conditions: IONIAN DESIGN 74 New Montgomery Street, Suite 300 San Francisco, California 94105 Tel: 415.291.9455 Fax: 415.291.9633 Email: infoeftburbandesign.com Figure -1 : Proposed Site Layout ATTACHMENT F It creates a lack of "edge" along the street. A distinct street wall is a key part of the vision for an active retail and entertainment corridor, and a building wall, rather than a parking lot, is necessary to define the street wall along the Southcenter Parkway. • It reduces the visibility of the retail located to the south/west of the site. This could encourage retailers to install freestanding and pole- mounted signs along Southcenter Parkway to supplement the lack of visibility to their storefronts, an image that is in keeping with the typical auto - oriented suburban strip, and not consistent with the vision for the Tukwila Urban Center. • It leaves the public sidewalk stranded between two auto-oriented environments, Southcenter Parkway and the parking lot. This results in a poor pedestrian environment along the public right of way where pedestrians are exposed to heavy fast - moving traffic and do not feel safe on the sidewalk. Recommendations In order to improve the issues caused by the proposed layout discussed above, reconfiguration of the proposed building is recommended. Given the constraints of parcel size and shape, however, possible reconfiguration alternatives of the building are limited. The illustration (Figure -2) shows a suggested site layout that would address the issues noted above while maintaining what we understand to be the developer's primary requirements for redevelopment. The recommendations associated with this layout are: 1. Create a Good Relationship with Existing Building The proposed I -shape layout removes visibility and access obstructions to Joann Fabric. This suggested L -shape layout establishes a seamless pedestrian network from the new building to existing ones, providing connectivity and enhancing the likelihood that shoppers will move from one establishment to another. In order to provide further incentive for pedestrian movement between stores, we would recommend widening the pedestrian path from the proposed five or six feet to eight feet at a minimum. 2. Contribute to the Creation of Street Frontage Figure - 2: Diagram of site layout recommendation The suggested L -shape layout addresses the issues caused by poor street frontage. The major benefits are as follows; • The new building frontage along Southcenter Parkway marks the edge of the site and delineates the street wall, thereby contributing to the urban corridor environment envisioned by the Tukwila Urban Center Subarea Plan. • The new building frontage improves the visibility of both the new retail building and of the existing one located to its south/west. This createsan opportunity to add a corner tower at a corner of the new building along Southcenter Parkway, providing a highly visible location for signage that takes advantage of the gentle curve of the front street at the site. Such a corner tower would be just as visible, more recognizable, and more attractive than the usual freestanding signs along the street. • The new layout enables the building to face its storefront on Southcenter Parkway, thereby improving the comfortability of the public sidewalk while also contributing to pedestrian activity on the sidewalk. In addition, we would also recommend relocation of the existing sidewalk inward from Southcenter Parkway along the new building edge to allow for the provision of a landscaped planting strip between pedestrians and fast - moving traffic. HEARING DATE: NOTIFICATION: FILE NUMBER: #,,/ APPLICANT: OWNERS: REQUESTS: ASSOCIATED PERMITS: • LOCATION: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: ZONE DESIGNATION: SEPA DETERMINATION: STAFF: City of Tukwila Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL STAFF REPORT TO THE BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW PREPARED NOVEMBER 4, 2004 Opened on September 16, 2004 continued to October 14, 2004 and November 18, 2004 L04 -036 Brad Decker. Brad Decker C..... _ i /1f` • ... On July 14, 2004 Notice of Application was mailed to surrounding properties and posted on the site. The Notice of Hearing was posted and mailed to surrounding properties and sent to the Seattle Times for publication on August 13, 2004. Notice of the rescheduled hearing was published September 3"'. Design approval for a revised one story retail building with associated site and landscape improvements. E04 -012 SEPA Demolition permit for Winners restaurant Development permit for proposed building 17401 Southcenter Parkway Tukwila Urban Center Tukwila Urban Center Determination of Nonsignificance Nora Gierloff Moira Carr Bradshaw Steven M. Mullet, Mayor QA1QR • D%+. -ro. 70,1,111.7A7f) • Far. 70,1- 4. ;1.7A,' Staff Report to the Board of Architectural Review 2 " Supplemental Edition ATTACHMENTS: PROJECT DESCRIPTION BACKGROUND FINDINGS 2 L04 -036 17401 Southcenter Parkway A. Applicant's Narrative Explaining Revisions in Response to 10/14 Hearing B. Revised Site Plan, Landscape Plan and Building Elevations C. Minutes of September 16, 2004 Meeting Under the proposal the existing Winners Restaurant would be demolished and replaced with a strip retail building between Ethan Allan and Jo -Ann on Southcenter Parkway. The original proposal for a single story 20,315 square foot retail building with accessory parking, landscaping, loading, and trash/recycling was revised to 20,039 square feet at the 9/16/04 hearing and 18,677 square feet at the 10/14/04 hearing. The August 2004 staff report (presented at the September 16 hearing) for the SC -3 Retail Building at 17401 Southcenter Parkway recommended that the Board of Architectural Review continue the hearing on the project and that the applicant be directed to revise the application to address the following areas: • The relationship between the proposed building, its surrounding site and the adjacent buildings; • The design of the building; • The lighting of the building; • The pedestrian environment at the entrance to the building; • The amount and type of plants used in the landscape; • The lighting of the northwest corner of the site. The BAR concurred with Staff's recommendation and continued the hearing until October 14 2004 to allow the applicant to revise the design. The October staff report found that there were still deficiencies in the site and landscaping plans, but recommended approval with a list of specific conditions. In addition the staff recommended that the applicant should be encouraged to work with adjacent property owner to obtain permission to: • Improve the plantings adjacent to the parking area on the north side; Staff Report to the Board of Architectural Review 2 " Supplemental Edition L04 -036 17401 Southcenter Parkway • Improve plantings adjacent to the south of the building modifying the landscape area such that the areas that are likely to be impacted by pedestrian paths are adequately treated; • Parking lot surface water is adequately addressed; • Connect the two parking areas along the eastern front; and • Provide a pedestrian connection between the entrance to Jo -Ann and the southern plaza. At the October hearing the BAR expressed disappointment at the number of unresolved site issues, especially those concerning pedestrian safety, and elected to keep the hearing open and continue it to November 18 to allow the following changes to be incorporated into the plan set: • Four feet of unobstructed pedestrian walkway along building frontage • Resolving the southernmost handicap stall • A landscape area in the rear where trellises are shown on the west building elevation • Ground and building mounted utilities located and screened to minimize their appearance in the landscape. • An elevation of the raised planting islands in the plaza and of a dumpster gate of solid metal. • Selection of complementarY .colors for the site's furnishings • Resolve all safety issues on -site, without reliance on any changes to the surrounding property • Backlighting the obscured glass at the rear of the building, or taking some other measure to enhance the impression that the back is also a storefront. Submittal of a landscape plan that incorporates: • the changes made to the site plan; • the plaza improvements; • the Northern Red Oak along Southcenter Parkway; and • plantings in the rear that complement the plants along the front of the Jo -Ann tenant space. PUBLIC COMMENT September 16, 2004 Hearing Two letters of comment, which were received from adjacent property owners or businesses, were included with the August staff report. A third comment letter was distributed to the BAR at the September hearing that represented the concerns of the adjacent property owner and manager. The two adjacent businesses as well as the property manager (ING Real Estate) representing the adjacent property owner attended the September hearing. Their concerns 3 Staff Report to the Board of Architectural Review L04 -036 2 " Supplemental Edition 17401 Southcenter Parkway included visibility blockage of their building from the street, the creation of an "alley" effect between the buildings, congestion at the north driveway, a tendency for the SC -3 customers to use the parking that is most convenient to the Jo -Ann store, possible damage to a high pressure storm sewer line during construction, poor existing lighting contributing to a history of property vandalism/theft and poor landscape maintenance. October 14, 2004 Hearing Legal council for Jo -Ann and the property manager for the adjacent development testified at the October hearing and submitted written comments. Concerns similar to those above were expressed, however the property manager acknowledged that his development was responsible for the poorly maintained northern strip of landscaping and promised to clean it up. They both cited legal obstacles to any sort of cooperative resolution of pedestrian and auto access issues between the existing and proposed development. The letter from ING vice president Steven Brunette expressed appreciation for the design changes to date but expressing continued opposition to the building location. While he suggested that locating the building further west adjacent to the street would be preferable, he acknowledged that the owner would not be able to approve the land trade necessary to accomplish this without the concurrence of the existing tenants. BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW ACTION After taking testimony at the September hearing on the subject proposal and the applicant's proposed revisions, the BAR continued the hearing and directed staff to prepare revised findings and conclusions for review and consideration by the BAR. The hearing was continued to October 14, 2004. At the October hearing the BAR took additional testimony and reviewed the revised drawings. They again continued the hearing so that the applicant could incorporate the conditions in the staff report into the drawings and resolve safety issues on -site. REMAINING REVIEW CRITERIA The applicant's narrative detailing his response to the remaining items the Board wanted addressed is Attachment A to this packet. The most recent plan set, reflecting those changes, is Attachment B. Each item the Board directed the applicant to address and staff s evaluation of that response is listed under the appropriate design criteria. The evaluation of the other site and building elements is contained in the previous staff reports and is not repeated here. The following findings and conclusions are based upon the revised plans and take into account the written and verbal testimony contained in the record. 4 Staff Report to the Board of Architectural Review L04 -036 2" Supplemental Edition 17401 Southcenter Parkway 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; • Provide four feet of unobstructed pedestrian walkway along building frontage A six and seven foot sidewalk along the east business entrances of the building replaced the five and six foot sidewalk in the original proposal. The store entrances have been modified to sliding rather than swinging doors, so that after the two foot car overhang there would be either four or five feet of clear walkway. 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. 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; Most of the landscape island adjacent to the 20 parking stalls to the north of the building is owned by the adjacent property o wner who has accepted responsibility for maintenance. Portions at the island at the east and west ends that are within the applicant's parcel are proposed to be upgraded, see Attachment B. • Submittal of a landscape plan that incorporates plantings in the rear that complement the plants along the front of the Jo -Ann tenant space. The heavenly bamboo, viburnum and katsura trees specified for the beds on the western side of the building are species used in the landscaping around the Jo -Ann building. c. Public buildings and structures should be consistent with the established neighborhood character; d. Compatibility of vehicular pedestrian circulation patterns and loading facilities in terms of safety, efficiency and convenience should be encouraged; • Resolving the southernmost handicap stall The location of handicap stalls adjacent to the barrier between the existing and new parking areas along Southcenter Parkway had resulted in a insufficient area to reverse for the southernmost stall. The applicant has revised the parking layout by rotating the stall so that it is parallel to the barrier, rather than at an angle. 5 Staff Report to the Board of Architectural Review 2 ° Supplemental Edition L04 -036 17401 Southcenter Parkway e. Compatibility of on -site vehicular circulation with street circulation should be encouraged. 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; • Resolve all safety issues on -site, without reliance on any changes to the surrounding property To provide an additional visual clue to motorists that the parking areas fronting Southcenter Parkway do not connect the applicant has added a planter strip with a hedge across the southernmost edge of his lot. The connections between the new walkway fronting the building and the existing parking area will be graded to be flush with the existing pavement as noted on the site plan. The new plaza at the southern edge of the property will be built flush with the curbing around the existing landscape area on the adjacent property. Two handicap ramps will be provided to transition between the raised plaza grade and the existing parking/driveway area. One will be at the southwest corner of the plaza and the other near the middle of the southern edge of the plaza at an existing break in the adjacent landscape island. c. Landscape treatment should enhance architectural features, strengthen vistas and important axis, and provide shade; Submittal of a landscape plan that incorporates: • the changes made to the site plan; • the plaza improvements; • the Northern Red Oak along Southcenter Parkway; and • A landscape area in the rear where trellises are shown on the west building elevation The applicant has submitted a revised landscape plan, see Attachment B. The plan has been updated to reflect the current site plan. Red oaks are shown as the Southcenter Parkway street trees. A narrow landscape strip has been added under each trellis and trumpet honeysuckle vines will be planted in each. d. In locations where plants will be susceptible to injury by pedestrian or motor traffic, mitigating steps should be taken; 6 Staff Report to the Board of Architectural Review L04 -036 2 " Supplemental Edition 17401 Southcenter Parkway The north parking area is laid perpendicular to the proposed building with landscaping separating the customers from the businesses. The applicant has testified and the property manager has confirmed that the adjacent property owner will not allow him to construct a customer pass through or place pavers in that island. A pedestrian ramp will be constructed near the middle of the southern edge of the plaza at an existing break in the adjacent landscape island. e. Where building sites limit planting, the placement of trees or shrubs in paved areas is encouraged; • Provide an elevation of the raised planting islands in the plaza Sheet A1.0 of Attachment B shows that the planters will be 3 feet tall, painted concrete with horizontal reveals. f Screening of service yards, and other places that tend to be unsightly, should be accomplished by use of walls, fencing, planting or a combination; • Ground and building mounted utilities located and screened to minimize their appearance in the landscape. The exact location and size of the future utility meters and cabinets are not known at this point in the development process. The applicant has added a note to the site-plan calling for such screening. • An elevation of a dumpster gate of solid metal. An elevation showing a standard solid metal gate is shown on Sheet A1.0. 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. 4. Building Design. a. Architectural style is not restricted, evaluation of a project should be 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; 7 Staff Report to the Board of Architectural Review 2 " Supplemental Edition L04 -036 17401 Southcenter Parkway • Backlighting the obscured glass at the rear of the building, or taking some other measure to enhance the impression that the back is also a storefront. Across from the Jo -Ann's entrance, obscured glass is shown between a set of columns. The applicant has proposed that a light switched to operate at the same time as the main store lights be placed in the storage area behind the glass. This is an interior detail that would not typically be shown on design review drawings. 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; Canopies are proposed around all sides of the building. Depth varies from five to three feet along the east facade, eighteen inches along the north facade and two feet on the south and three feet on the west. Staff had originally proposed that all of the canopies be five feet deep, however this would intrude into the setback on the north and portions of the west and south sides. 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 building projects should be avoided. Variety of detail, form and siting should be used to provide visual interest. S. 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. • Selection of complementary colors for the site's furnishings The applicant indicates that the proposed color for the benches and trash cans will be green to match the accent color of the building and the color of the furniture in the Park Place Center pedestrian areas. The bike rack is proposed to be black. See Attachment A for the elevation of the proposed benches and trash cans. b. Lighting in connection with miscellaneous structures and street furniture should meet the guidelines applicable to site, landscape and buildings. 8 CONCLUSIONS t Staff Report to the Board of Architectural Review L04 -036 2 " Supplemental Edition 17401 Southcenter Parkway The Board of Architectural Review, pursuant to Tukwila Municipal Code (TMC) Section 18.108.040, and upon fmding of the facts above and in the August 19 and October 6 staff reports hereby makes the following conclusions under the city's Design Review Criteria (TMC 18.60.050) and Determination of Consistency with Adopted Plans and Regulations for type 4 approvals (TMC 18.100.030.) At the October hearing the Board expressed general acceptance of the project building elevations and site layout. However they continued the hearing to allow the project to be revised to incorporate the above listed conditions prior to granting their approval. The applicant has made modifications to the overall site plan that creates better transitions between the proposed development and the surrounding improvements. These on -site transitions are acceptable, and hopefully once the project has been constructed the applicant will be able to work cooperatively with the adjacent property owner on additional landscape improvements. 1. Relationship of Structure to Site. With the revision to the store entrances at least four feet of unobstructed walkways will be provided along the front of the building providing adequate pedestrian movement. 2. Relationship of Structure and Site to Adjoining Area. The applicant has proposed to upgrade the portions of the landscape island that fall within the northernmost sliver of his property. The City cannot compel the adjacent property owner to do anything beyond standard landscape maintenance since they do not have an application before the Board. The new landscape plan uses some of the plant species around the Jo -Ann store in the planting beds along the west side of the building. This will help to create the impression of a unified • development. The southernmost handicapped stall along Southcenter Parkway has been rotated to be parallel with the southern property line and planter. This allows adequate reversing space while maintaining an adequate pedestrian pathway from the street. 3. Landscaping and Site Treatment. The applicant has proposed on -site revisions that will adequately address the pedestrian safety concerns raised at the hearing. Ramps from the plaza to the existing off -site parking lot grade will be provided at two locations, minimizing the risk of tripping hazards. The connections between the sidewalk fronting the building and the existing parking area will be flush with the existing pavement. 9 Staff Report to the Board of Architectural Review 2 "d Supplemental Edition The applicant has submitted a revised landscape plan that conforms to the Board's conditions. It reflects the current site plan, uses the correct Southcenter Parkway street tree and has a landscape bed under each trellis. The landscape architect has submitted a letter affirming that the hypericum and ivy specified for the narrow planting bed between the front parking area and retaining wall will grow in this hostile environment, see Attachment A. Adequate elevations of the planter boxes for the plaza and the gates for the recycling and garbage area have been submitted. Though the locations of the utility meters and cabinets are not known yet the applicant has added a note requiring them to be located and screened to minimize their visibility. This should be reviewed at the time of building permit. 4. Building Design. In response to the Board's request to enhance the impression that the rear of the building is also a storefront the applicant has proposed backlighting the obscured glass with a light on the same switch as the main store lights. Implementation of this proposal will rely on interior details that will not be submitted until the time of building permit. Therefore this should be a permit condition. 5. Miscellaneous Structures and Street Furniture. The applicant indicates that the proposed color for the benches and trashcans will be green to match the accent color of the building and the color of the furniture in the Park Place Center pedestrian areas. This will enhance the design continuity of the site. The bike rack is proposed to be black. RECOMMENDATION The applicant has modified the landscape, site and building design to address each of the conditions required by the Board of Architectural Review at the October hearing. Therefore staff recommends that the Board approve the project per the plans date stamped November 4, 2004 with the following items to be implemented at the time of building permit: • Ground and building mounted utilities shall be located and screened to minimize their visibility. • A light switched to operate at the same time as the main store lights shall be placed in the area behind the obscured glass on the west side of the southernmost tenant space. 10 L04 - 036 17401 Southcenter Parkway October 26` 2004 City of Tukwila Nora Gierloff 6300 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 RE: L04 -036 ADRESS: 17401 Southcenter Parkway BRAD DECKER 117 EAST LOUISA STREET # 230 SEATTLE, WA 98102 (206) 545 -4964 r i ry RECEIVED TI Knne OCT 2 6 2004 PERMIT CENTE, Dear Nora and Council Members, We have made the following changes based on your requests from the last meeting: 1) Four feet of unobstructed pedestrian walkway along building frontage. - We have removed the out swinging doors and added automatic sliding doors along the building frontage. 2) Resolving the southernmost handicap stall. - We have rotated the handicap stall clockwise to be parallel with the property line. This will allow 24 feet unobstructed back up as requested. 3) A landscape area in the rear where trellises are shown on the west building elevation - We have added a landscaping area on the West side, so that all trellises have landscaping under them on the West side. 4) Ground and building mounted utilities located and screened to minimize their appearance in the landscape. - We have added this as a note on the plans. 5) An elevation of the raised planting islands in the plaza and of a dumpster gate of solid metal. • - We have provided a detail on the plans to show an elevation of the island planters and the metal gate for the dumpster. 6) Submittal of a landscape plan that incorporates: the changes made to the site plan; • the plaza improvements; the Northern Red Oak along Southcenter Parkway; and Attachment A plantings in the rear that complement the plants along the front of the Jo -Ann tenant space. - The Landscape Architect has revised the plans to show the changes in the building, plaza improvements, Northern Red Oaks along Southcenter Parkway, and added plantings in the west side that complements the plants along the front of the Jo- Ann tenant space. 7) Selection of complementary colors for the site's furnishings. - We are proposing to match the green trim color for all site furnishings; except the bike rack, which we suggest black. 8) Resolve all safety issues on -site, without reliance on any changes to the surrounding property - We have made the following changes to reduce tripping hazards. a) East driveway — We have provided a planter with a hedge on the south side of the driveway. b) East walkways — We have made a note on the plans and will build the sidewalks to end flush with existing driveway. c) South plaza — We have made a note on the plans and will build the plaza walkway flush with existing curb on the South side. d) West walkway — We have provided a handicap ramp to drop 6" to be flush with existing driveway. 9) Commissioner Peterson also asked about backlighting the opaque glass at the rear of the building, or taking some other measure to enhance the impression that the back is also a storefront. - We would propose a light in the west store front to back light the store front. It should be connected to the main lights, so when the store opens, the light will come on and turn off with the main lights. Thank ou • . consideration. Brad Decker w Oct 25 04 05:13p Craig Esvelt Att: Mr. Brad Decker October 25, 2004 ig B. Esvelt, landscape architect 18845 SE 213 Renton, WA 98058 425.432.1587 Mr. Brad Decker Decker Development & Construction, Inc. 117 East Louisa St. #230 Seattle, WA 98102 (425) 432 -1587 p.1 Re: Landscape Design Review Considerations for SC-3 Retail Facility, 17401 Southcenter Parkway, Tukwila, WA Dear Brad, With regard to the narrow planting bed off the northeast corner of the building (LS = 81 sf), the groundcover I specified, hypericum, will easily cover the space within three years. Hypericum is tough and fast growing as well as relatively low and flexible and so should not be a problem with overhanging car bumpers. The boston ivy 1 also specified will tend to cover and soften the concrete wall behind the plant bed. I r ti 4 ,, V k @ • /' • t r �W. M 4 • i 4 o • Y. . ., e. 4. 4 4 ... • 4 .• i. rA Ma 4 4 lb f : : r « 4 t +1 4 4, 4 4 a a o , A 4• ,k 4•. t Y �'0� ' : +? 4, rot ' W yp: it ' {' 41 'l% 4 ♦ 4. ' '. ..; k 9 .4 a 4x¢4 .. 4... ' 4 a ♦ 4. 4 4. M 1 t{ a a . q, . •''o.4 4 4 , • 'r @ 4 4 ,. r a . 'i! , # r b 4s M s M « s • w , 4 g P p >) ! y p : p " k 4 R " +? ar • IC d. # ' k R 4 It Y r r .a r i ,�. i�, t. t ! . P !! . # A ti ;a 1 4. 4 • a ' a a . * M f RO A 1M iR y a , 4 • r • «: "y °a 4 i 4 .4 y 4 d+ . .4 ♦ Y 1 Y 6 • 4. ' i A r r °#'. `• ' ". 4 ",..4 •, ♦ 4 .! a ,! 4 R n w t .4 t o . , x ., • '4, r a e i♦ .' .4 • 4 it P • • . . 4! d. .p 4 t w r t ■ 4 ♦ 4 r • i r r -r b, . • i. s •'. .m•.4 4 R..A`'r v.,+ R. ay r...44 A 4, 4 _ • a,: r _ e s.:" - ,•.r.. 4 4 • 4 4 4 :' 4.cb 4 R . .00 DERO Bike Rack Co. : Classic P*e Storage - Rolling Rack Products and Info for: CAII Products CHome Storage OVehicles OSmaII Businesses CArchitects OSchool /University OProperty Managers OCustom Racks CCompany Info OContact Us ['Policies OHelp /FAQ Bike Parking Resources: ONews OEuropean Racks eFunky Racks OSecurity Issues OBike Parking Guidelines OLinks Innovative Bicycle Storage Racks toll free: 888 - 337 -6729 email::; .T:1` :34"tiVa^)ae1 Rolling Rack FE More Images » Features: • Attractive Design ■ Accomodates single and double sided parking • In- ground and surace mounted ■ Various sizes available • Easy Installation The graceful design and high security of the Rolling Rack has made this type of bike rack a standard for many schools and communities. The Rolling Rack can be used as a single - sided or double -sided parking bike rack. The Rolling Rack can be ordered for in- ground or foot mounted installation. This rack uses thick pipe construction and allows for one of the wheels and frame to be secured using a u -style bike lock Page 1 of 1 Please contact us for pricing and order information. X • C Download Rolling Rack Brochure O See Finish Options As -f f3 ice_s W 10 0 0 2 NEW POLE UGH1 EIS INt• 21 "A " G .T LL $ .8'40 ' S� JOANN FABRIC PEARS TOP 7 EXIST. PKG. - NOT A PART OF PROPERTY BUT USEABLE BORDERS BOOKSTORE F%8T. ASPHALT WV... 315 NEW POLE UCHT S 88'51'25' E MATCH LANDSCAPE ACROSS 6LR. DR In � C"T " BLDG SW ELEV.. MO' MATCH LANDSCAP ACROSS MIT. DR. 000 BOLLARD 0010 D FLUSH W/ EXIST. PAVEMEENT ��t •:t to 1 . s* i`1&t sop! le.„Ace. Am MATCH ADJACENT CENTER F 1 NOTE: GROUND AND RAIDING MOUNTED MUTES LOCATED AND SORE�T.�ED TO MINIMIZE THOR APPEARANCE IN 7HE LANDSCAPE 27 .38' SITE CROSS- SECTION A -A COMMON ACCESS DRNE ESMT. co p00.12.0% " N D Np OS?. PXO. - N T P R OPERTY BUT USEABLE Ls.380 182.00' ARCHW WA UP . SC01021111/11 P1000 Mad ■ 1 ■ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 VICINITY MAP SC -3 RETAIL BUILDING SITE AREA: 47,694sf BLDG. AREA: 18,677sf ON SITE PARKING: 76 CARS LANDSCAPE AREA: 5,232sf ± SITE PLAN r = 20' -0 17401 SOUTHCENTER PARKWAY NOTES: 1. PYLON SIGN SUBJECT TO SIGN CODE. 2. HEIGHT OF PYLON SIGN NOT TO EXCEED 30' A.F.G. 3. SITE LIGHTING • 9 BOLLARD LIGHTS © 100W EACH = 900W • 7 POLE MOUNTED SHOE BOX' LIGHTS . © 400W EACH = 2,800W TOTAL WATTS = 4,100W 4. MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE WATTS © • 0.20W /SF = 5,476W 20' 10 LANDSCAPE CALCULATIONS:. ./ PARKING LS REQUIRED IN FRONT /SIDE = 59 STALLS x 15s.f. = 885s.f. PARKING LS SHOWN = 1,365sf (NQT INCLUDING 15' FRONT YD. LANDSCAPING) PARKING LS REQUIRED IN REAR = 17 STALLS x 10s.f. = 170s.f. PARKING LS SHOWN = 696s.f. CONCRETE PLANTER 3A2 q�- /►a /az04 NOV 0 4 2004 vEBMT' DUMPSTER ELEVATION Arkz,c-1.w - 0 t o 0 N z J 0 ww L SAS 4.4,4 3 0 a'0 5 a 0 u heat A1.0 0 FLOOR PLAN 16' 8' 8' ' 6' 16' 16' 8 EAST 1,II�IiilIIIIhhh. i. 111 ir w SIGNAGE w w w ig �r,L - wwww ®- I -- -- u ®E�11WAA��1� E �'�LL.�ESEEEME.9 -■ •...a I �:: 1111. 1111 86' -1 1 � NORTH ELEVATION 16' IS' 0' 8 16' 111 MINIM MIN EIMIS LINE EISEIM EEw ran Ism "11 13 12 Ems anit !NIA SOUTH ELEVATION mom= Isom, ria■Nousimmimmi. 3 11 0 111 1 0- 1 11 1 .111 1 1111 1 1 : W.-611111 Ina= —E. E r BM SS MEM REC1CLE & OUMPS ER ENCLOSURE. RASED TRELLIS YTL DOOR TO BE PALMED — — — — -- PAMT 8000 COIDR TRELLIS BODY CCLOR (TOP.) E,LEVAT.I O N W E S T 16' 8' 0 8' 16' STANDING YET . RDdTNO 11111 �hi . III ■� —lam 1 1t o III - w -wii. 11111111111/111111111 w w relaMaRESEMINEMINSILTRw®® ®waENEEIG)M ME NV wE Ms ®wn®»amwnna®® i N MB! SEES MEOW ESINEW E. MI EN EMBOWER MERV BM sammosirami■ EH MFEE0621118ma Bs muutatial HERE ®:: SSE®. 0 ME itEl WIIIISEMSITEI 21:= ' ii ® ENE ht .EFES'Eii Ef___•• ® ®s®co ass11 Mg o' k 16 E L E V A T I O N .D(TYP.) ITEI ROOF(ttP.) CONCRETE PANELS W/ REYEN -S. PAINT UETAL GNDP/ W/ TIE ROOS. PANT CLEAR INSLRAED GLASS IN ANODIZES ALUMINUM FRAMES CERAMIC TIE PATTERN 1' - 16' -0' PRECAST PARAPET TYP. PER 1 /A2.0 PRE CAST CR SHAND YR COPING PRECAST CONC. PANEL PARAPET DETAIL SCALE: 1' = 1' -0' 40' 1' - 16' -0' WNL SCONCE LICHT FIXTURE - TYP. - mP. N011 0 4 2004 ■Era.t CEO. ►o -sa oI __.: glop Il sr+oe 3aOOrl MS 'Dole 33no3a I uoIsIAB' mom: 2 •ou qof of0 -t0 PTK drawn 1 . checked e {op [r a „. SC -3 RETAIL BUILDING 17401 SOUTHCENTER PARKWAY TUKWILA, WASHINGTON IFLOOR PLAN & ELEVATIONS 1'= 16• -0' _ANCE MUELLER '6 ASSOCIATES sheet A2.0 FLOOR PLAN 16' 8' 8' ' 6' 16' 16' 8 EAST 1,II�IiilIIIIhhh. i. 111 ir w SIGNAGE w w w ig �r,L - wwww ®- I -- -- u ®E�11WAA��1� E �'�LL.�ESEEEME.9 -■ •...a I �:: 1111. 1111 86' -1 1 � NORTH ELEVATION 16' IS' 0' 8 16' 111 MINIM MIN EIMIS LINE EISEIM EEw ran Ism "11 13 12 Ems anit !NIA SOUTH ELEVATION mom= Isom, ria■Nousimmimmi. 3 11 0 111 1 0- 1 11 1 .111 1 1111 1 1 : W.-611111 Ina= —E. E r BM SS MEM REC1CLE & OUMPS ER ENCLOSURE. RASED TRELLIS YTL DOOR TO BE PALMED — — — — -- PAMT 8000 COIDR TRELLIS BODY CCLOR (TOP.) E,LEVAT.I O N W E S T 16' 8' 0 8' 16' STANDING YET . RDdTNO 11111 �hi . III ■� —lam 1 1t o III - w -wii. 11111111111/111111111 w w relaMaRESEMINEMINSILTRw®® ®waENEEIG)M ME NV wE Ms ®wn®»amwnna®® i N MB! SEES MEOW ESINEW E. MI EN EMBOWER MERV BM sammosirami■ EH MFEE0621118ma Bs muutatial HERE ®:: SSE®. 0 ME itEl WIIIISEMSITEI 21:= ' ii ® ENE ht .EFES'Eii Ef___•• ® ®s®co ass11 Mg o' k 16 E L E V A T I O N .D(TYP.) ITEI ROOF(ttP.) CONCRETE PANELS W/ REYEN -S. PAINT UETAL GNDP/ W/ TIE ROOS. PANT CLEAR INSLRAED GLASS IN ANODIZES ALUMINUM FRAMES CERAMIC TIE PATTERN 1' - 16' -0' PRECAST PARAPET TYP. PER 1 /A2.0 PRE CAST CR SHAND YR COPING PRECAST CONC. PANEL PARAPET DETAIL SCALE: 1' = 1' -0' 40' 1' - 16' -0' WNL SCONCE LICHT FIXTURE - TYP. - mP. N011 0 4 2004 ■Era.t CEO. 1 Inch - 20 fl SURVEY NOTES _ .7 E;;'71 �fS i0�5pPiwY 5'� 48" 55MH Rim 27.65 16 SW 14.60 12' IE 5 II 80 15 16 NE 14.5012' SURVEY BY EMERALD LAND SURVEYING CONTOUR INTERVAL - 2 FOOT VERTICAL DATUM - NAVD 86 BENCH MARK: 'Top SE Bolt of Bow of Light Stsndore ROS 22 -140. Bev: 24.02. 61 1 NW 20.71 36* E 1 3 0. 206' 5r 51. 6' • ..- TM 19.61 - -- A ON 770]2206 _ 50 .... �PP . - �� No Build Eosom.et_os P. Exhibits D & F STN 9507270262 26.66 12'. 26.66 12' 36• \ S6 J6 -- Gyp CB w. 2 -54' IE I44 20.37 36' IE 5E 20.37 36' IE S. 21.57 20' E CE 69.1 IE 25.36 20' - AIL BUEDIs JG ■ LEGAL DESCRIPTION • A PORTION OF THE S.W. 1/4 OF SECTION 26. TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST. W.M IN KING COUNTY. WASHINGTON. DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE SOUTH 1/4 CORNER 06 SAID SECTION 26; THENCE N 87 W ALONG THE SECTION UNC A DISTANCE OF 481.05 FEET TO THE WEST MARCH OF SOUTHCENTER PARKWAY; THENCE N 11'59'33' W ALONG SAID MARGIN A DISTANCE OF 72543 FEET TO A BOUNDARY WITH A TRACT CONVEYED BY DEED RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NO. 8912290859 AND THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE, CONTINUING N 1179'33' W ALONG SAID WEST MARGIN OF SOUTHCENTER PARKWAY A DISTANCE OF 105.15.FEET TO A POINT OF A CURVE THENCE ALONG SAID CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OF 991.37 FEET THROUGHT A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 04'5359'. AN ARC DISTANCE Cr ' 84.78 FEET TO THE' SOUTH BOUNDARY Of A COMMON DRIVEWAY EASEMENT (EASEMENT NO. 1 AS RESERVED IN E RECORDING N0. 8912290859} THENCE LEAVING U SAID WEST MARGIN OF SOUTHCENTER PARKWAY, S 851211' W A DISTANCE OF 182.00 FEET; THENCE 5 11'59'33' E A DISTANCE OF 261:67 FEET; THENCE S 8815'36' E A DISTANCE OF 115.17 FEET; THENCE N 111859'33' W A DISTANCE OF 91,74 FEET; THENCE S 86'25'36' E A DISTANCE OF 66.85 FEET TO THE WEST MARGIN OF SOUTHCENTER PARKWAY AND THE PONT OF BEGINNING. TOGETHER WITH THAT PORT10N OF THE 5E 1/4 OF THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 26. TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W.M. IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE 5E CORNER OF THE 5E 1/4 OF THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 26; THENCE N 8145•31 W ALONG THE SOUTH UNE OF SAID 5E 1/4 OF THE SW 1/4 A DISTANCE Of 481.03 FEET, TO INC NEST MARGIN OF SOUTHCENTER PARKWAY AS ESTABUSHED IN KING COUNTY RECORDING N0.'S 6343862. 6343863, 8343865, 6343867 AND 8343866:. THENCE N 11' 59'33' W ALONG SAID WEST MARGIN A O75TANCE OF 830.58 FEET; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID WEST MARGIN ON A CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 991.37 FEET, AN • ARCE DISTANCE OF 124.78. THROUGHT A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 0712'41" TO THE TRUE PONT Cr BEGINNINCN THENCE 5 86' 40'03' W A DISTANCE OF 274.13 FEET; THENCE N 0106'35' E A DISTANCE OF 30.66 FEET; THENCE 5 88'51'25' E A • DISTANCE OF 272.38 FEET TO SAID WEST MARGIN OF SOUTHCENTER PARKWAY; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG. SAID WEST MARGIN ALONG A CURVE TO THE LEFT, THE CENTER OF WHICH BEARS N. 85'45'26' E. HAVING A RADIUS Cr 991.37 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 00'32'18' TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. fi '64 NEW POLE \ 1107{T 5 88'51'25' E S 88µp'03' W I Rim 30.79 6E NW 1544 121 116 6 1554 12 LICHT 272.38' 274.13' CB Toe 1 CE 30.49 IE NW 2519 12' IE E 25.09 12' UM 23.49 TOE OF NEW CURB SHALL MATCH EXST GRADE SWl /4, SEC 26, TWP 23N, RGE 4E ai CP ( CB T .,1 IE w 2114 8' BM 1638 2,9 True Poi 01 B.q.n I o1 � . 8 . 1 ( 1' OPENING IN CURB (TRENCH 6-5 OVERFLOW) 1 CB T,• 1 C 23.03 IE W 27.70 8' e1N 1e. Sdie GE 25.67 E 77 1627 IE s 16.37 45" IE W 17.17 36' IE 5W 79.67 6' 5714 15.17 MIS OF GRADING 3.51 15' 3.91 12' 31 36' Tru• Point of Boginning Po61 A PARKING LOT CURB NTH 1' OPENINGS. 10' 0.0. 3H:1V 1 4' TO 3/4 WASHED ROCK EARTHWORK QUANTITIES: FILL: 20 CY CUT: 3058 01' CAJANTTIES ARE APPROXIMATE. CONTRACTOR IS RE001RED TO PERFORM ALL WORK NECESSARY TO BRING SITE TO GRADES AS SHOWN ON THIS PLAN AND TO MEET FIELD CONDITIONS DATE: 6/2/04 SCALE: 1' -20 'f • " J . III ..71; & =! VICINITY MAP NTS EXST GRADE 1.5' MIN 3H:1V 8' PERF PVC ROCK TRENCH, 1 10/22/04 REVISED PER NEW SITE PLAN 8/4/04 REVISED PER NEW 517E PLAN SC -3 RETAIL BUILDING 17401 SOUTHCENTER PKWY ES: DCD OWN: JK GRADING PLAN DECKER 0EVEL0PM5NT 84 CONSTRUCTION, INC 117E 10015* ST, #230 LSE4T'LE, WA 98102 PHONE: 268- 545-4984 1 EXPIRES 5 /14 /or 511E DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 310 2081 ST SE BOTHELL, WA 98012 (425) 4819687 (425)485.7199 (FAX) lof4 20 0 10 20 NI NI I III NI 1111=11 1 (648 - 20 (1. 40 $e- EuiNnMl - ;01 - 590't 55 ./p 48' SSMN vn 27.6 1E Sw 14.60 12' IE 5 14.60 12" PE NE 1450 12' 1 ■ CB ,.e 2 -54' C 2• IE Nv( 20.37 38' IE 5E 20.37 36' IE Sw 11.57 20" 1E 25.38 20' IE 5 25.28 BTM123.98 28.61 .11 36' I NW 20 F I E 20.01 36' �����_��_ _ I . ,,rc " Y Tar-.677;1-6;6';i eine _ B -9.61 q _S� --N 7703220819 Bu4d Easement 0 Y i 6FN 9507210282 F M1 / I CB T 8: IE NW 28.86 12' IE 5E 2886 12' 8174 25.36 5 88'51'25' E 5 86+40'03" W I Re ]0.7 IE 14W 1144 1 1 1 5 1554 12 1 PLACE CB FILTER 1 SILT FENCE. CLEARING LIMIT 1 272.38' 274.13' GE 30.49 IC Nw 2619 12' 16 E 25.09 12' 8794 23.49 SW1/4, SEC 26, TWP 23N, RGE 4E 81 CP • ° 'SSA PLACE PLACE C8 FILTER ( P -5 CB T , e 1 PE w 21.54 e' BTU 1 638 e 1 Tn. Pelnt Beginning 36' CB T 1 GE 3.0 427.78 4794 18.53 T FENCE C4 PA. (CLEARING LIMIT) ti91 1 -7 Solid 25.67 IE N 18.27 48 1E 5 16.37 48' IF 617 IE 5w (9.87 8' 8744 18.17 GE 26. IE 5 23. 31 18' 1E W 23.91 12' BIN 81A4 22.31 S C8 FILTER SILT FENCE ON P/L, (CLEARING LIMIT) Tnl• Point of Point Beginning 9 1 CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE: 1. ARRANGE AND ATTEND PRECONSTRUCTICN MEETING 1MTN CITY OF TUXMLA INSPECTCR. 2. FLAG CLEARING LMOTS. 3. INSTALL 4. CLEAN OUT CB'SS L TE5 ' 7 USED) AN0 CLEAR AREA OF PROPOSED 6088. 5. INSTALL SECIMENT CONTROL SYSTEMS, AS 265071ED. 6. PERFORM GRADING, INSTALL UTIUTIE5. k INSTALL PAVEMENT. 7. SEED OR SURFACE 0121.38850 AREAS. 8. CLEAN OUT STORM DRAIN SYSTEM. 9. REMOVE SEGMENT CONTROL 9EA5URE5 AFTER SITE HAS BEEN STABtLl2E0 AND THE OTY5 INSPECTOR HAS APPROVED THE REMOVAL. 10/22/04 REUSED PER NEW SITE PLAN 8/4/04 REVISED PER NEW SITE PLAN DATE: 8/2/04 SCALE: 1'-20 SC -3 RETAIL BUILDING 17401 50UTHCENTER PKWY DES: DCD DWN: JK TESC PLAN DECKER DEVELOPMENT & CONSTRUCTION, INC 117E LCUISA ST, #230 \_SEA E, WA 98102 Pu0NP. 7nR_6.4 _ I EXPIRES 5/14/P SITE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 310 208T11 5TSE BOTHELL, WA 98012 (425) 481-9687 (425)485 -7199 (FAX) 2 of 4 I inch - 20 EL Se :e, Eos �0�5 Cr 55MN Aim 27.6 IC SW.14.60 12" 'IE 5 14.60 12' IE NE 14 50 17" RELOCATED OUT,° IE . 54.6 IE■2011(36"NW) IE- 20.01(36"1.4) (CONN AU. OTHER OPERTAT1 SD'a SERVED BY THIS CB) ELOC EXST 1M1 T METER V TH DOC NEW BUILDING No Bugg Eos.nent as P. Esnbits D & F 4EN 9507210257 we l 68 26.66 12" 26.66 12" 36 9 "P R �q ?DRNN ERF 0 PVC Q500F % H#1(T1PE 2 -8 4") COMMON. ACC W/ OFFSEP CHA NNEL • TE- 29.0(SCLID LID) IE- 19.66(ALL 36") • � % . II I N . .1� - --T2 t% E 20.01 - Tcrot. a . i re: tent %',. SIe�MHY -- - 0 )L no�32zoe_ r � - REwo E xs I srcup I ii _- e 4, PLACE EX ST CB Wt 04 / , 1 ,30� Eo NEW °Mar."2 -•4 ") / (& . ' c wnoN W sul+ GE 2 .67 1E N 16.27 48" IE 5 16.37 46" IE W.17.17 36" IE SW 19.67 6" BIM 16.17 NEW 36"1E - EXST - - J C4, CB we 2 -54" .E NA 20.37 36" IE SE 20.37 36" IE 5W 11.47 20" CS CE IE 25.36 20" - AIL BU 5 PING CONN NEW BLDG 1 SEWER TO EXST SIDE SEWER. VERIFY SZE AND CONDITION H CITY'S INSPECTOR • S 88"51'25' E S 8640'03" W Pen 30.79 IE NW 1544 12). IE S 1514 11 \fflIl!ii PO BOL LIGHT z 272.38' 274.13 GE 30.49 IE NW 25.19 12" IE E 25.09 12" BD/ 2349 10'dpRAINAGE S CB /3('PE 1 TE -2 . IE.21.91 e0. ) 1E N:1.25(ep TE 23 6( UD) IE- t6.20(ALL) SD LOCATION ESTIMATED, VERIFY PRIOR TO CONSTR & NOTIFY INSPECTOR IF NOT AS SHOWN SW /4, SEC 26, TWP 23N, RGE 4E CB W 6 IE 6 .3 e e" e7M l e.3e ' �-• o1 gin P n P g alb P 'O S6, lU . "p IE- 23.22(600) STORUCEPTORII n.24.5(501.10 LID) 1 1E- 20.12(IN) E- 20.04SOUT) 16LF 6 CPEP 0 0.5% FIRE SPRINKLER MAH4. SIZE TO BE DETERMINED V 3.51 I6" 3.91 12" .31 BEGIN 6" PVC 1E -27.7 CONN T EXST W Tru• PPM of Beginning Pont A ■ STC 450( Precast Concrete Stormceptore (430 US Gallon Capacity) Cover and Grate Section Thru Chamber NTS Valet To Match Grade 0 Merl l DA TE: 6/2/04 SCALE: 1 " -20' See 15o5 2 Notate I. N Use Of Flexible Connection Is Recommended al The Inlet and CVtel Where Applicable 2. N Carer Shaid be Positioned Over TTM Intel Drop Pipe and The Vent Pipe. l N S105n cptor System is pmbded by one a mo , of the foboeilg U.S. Patents: #4985148, 15496331,1Pr25T60, #5753116,1 ' STORMCEPTOR 450i 10/22/04 REVISED PER NEW STE PLAN 4"0 PVC Pipe Cleaned /Vent Ppe � 4"0 Ou6et fr#2; 21 k m___ , haat Dare 6 Tee Hen (Tee Opening to Face side Wall) Plan View EXPIRES 5/144, 1 JUS SITE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 310 2013TH ST SE Bonet, WA 98012 • (425) 4819607 (425)485 -7199 (FAX) 13/4/04 REVISES PER NEW SITE PLAN 1 SC -3 RETAIL BUILDING 17401 SCUTHCENTER PKWY DES: DOD OWN: JK DRAINAGE PLAN DECKER DEVELOPMENT et CONSTRUCTION, INC 117 E LOUISA ST. 1 #230 SEATTLE, WA 99102 PHONE: 206-545-4964 3 of '4 Lout Ions shown for existing utllRfes cur approximate. Prior to Itartlnq constructor, COtltaCt • ONE -CALL (1400- 424•198uI) for utility location. 1. Project Manager 2. Design Engineer 3. Owner: 4. Other: GENERAL 1. Notify the Utilities inspector at 106.433.0179 at lent 48 hours befori starting project site work. 2. Request 1 Public Works utility Inepeldpon at leant 24 hours in advance by calling 206 - 4334179. 3. The Contractor assumes sole reeponslbmty for ■etiner safety, end damage to Structures and Improvements roeudng from cdnitrudion amnions, 4. The Contractor Mall have the permtt(a) and conditions, the approved plans, and s current copy of City of Tukwila Infrastructure Desfpn and Constructfon Standards available at the job site. 5. All work shad conform to thee approved drawings. Any changes from the approved plans require pre- approval from the owner, the engineer, and the City of Tukwila, 6, At methods and materials shell meet City of Tukwila infssovcture Dssfgn and Canstructfon Standards, unless otherwise approved by the Pubic Works DhectOr. 7. Contractor shall maintain a current set of record drawings on•stte. 8. Contractor shall provide mcord drawings prior to project final approve!. 9. Contractor shall provide traf(le Control and street maintenance plan for Mlle Works approve! before Implementation, 1.0. All surveying for pubile fedldal shall be done under the direction of a Washington licensed land surveyor. Vertical datum Mall be NAVO 1988. Horizontal datum shall be NAD 83/91. For projects within 1 Mood control zone, the Permit shall provide conversion calculation, to NGVO 1.929. 11. The Contractor shall reptaca, or relocate all signs damaged or removed due to construction, GRADING AND EROSION CONTROL NOTES 1. The erosion prevention and sediment control (ESC) measures on the approved plans are minimum requtnlments. 2. Before beotnnme any romanMiort arMvmea establish the clearing Snits end Metall construction entrance. 3. Debra any ground disturbance orrurs, 10 downstream erosion prevention and sediment control measures (ESC) must be constructed and In operation. ImtaO and maintain a0 ESC measures accordtnq to the ESC plan. 1 4. !SC measures, Including bin perimeter controls, shall rameM In puce until tinel site construchon b completed and permanent.tabOhstion 1s established. 5, From May 1 through September 30, provide temporary end permanent cover measures to protect disturbed anal that will remain unworked for seven days or more. 6. From October 1 through April 30, provide temporary and permanent cover measures to protect disturbed that wilt roman unworked for two days or more. In addition to cover measures, the Contractor the: • Protect stockpile and steep cut and fill slopes If unworked for mom than 12 hours. • Stockpile, on she, enough cover materials to cover all dsturbed Ines. 7. By October /, seed all areas that will remain unworked during tin wet sessen (October 1 through April 30). Mulch all seeded areas. BRAG DECKER DECKEIF 6E VE� k CON! RUCTION 11TH?TY F40Tl9 • 1. AM trench excavation opentler* shall meat or exceed all applicable shoring laws for trenches over 4-feet deep. All trench safety systems shall mat WISMA requirements. 2. Power, cable, fiber optics, and telephone Mate shell be In a trench whiz a S' minimum horizontal separation from other underground *010.1. 3. Adpust ell manholes, catch basins, and vaIvee In public rights or easements after asphalt paving. STORM DRATNAGE NOT'S 1 1. All methods and materials shag meet Ctty of Tukwila infrastructure Deakin and Construction standards, and the current Xing County Surface Water DssIgn Manual, unless otherwise approved, 2. Merit all storm drain Inlets with 'Dump No Waste' and either 'Dreams to Streams ", "Drains to Wetlands", or `Online to Groundwater', in eopncable. 3. DrNeway culverts shall be of suffldent length to provides minimum 3:1 slope from the edge of the driveway to the bottom of the ditch. Culverts shall have beveled end sections that match the aide 5100e. 4. For single family construction provide one of the following notest SI001, family residences constructed en Iota crested by subdivision must provide downspout Infltratton according to the approved luadNbton. Singh hmlIy realdenna constructed on alts treated by subdivider' must provide dawmpeut dbperalon systems 'careen to the approved O .ubdMalon. • Single family residence constructed on lots created by subdNNbn must provide perforated stub -cut connecdma according to the approved subdNlelon. ' • 5. Coordinate Mal stub -out batbne Mb% he Udidee Inspector. Provide a wire or other detection device and mark .tub-out location with a 1•to0t 2•X• stake, burled 4 -het end 'libeled `storm' or `draft", 1. Toe Contn shut metal corporate stops, water saMa cane, and mean. The City of Tukwaa will Inrtet the ?rebore. 2. Pressure tell sag water main snd eppurtenanaa. 1. Plush and 41.Infe0 new, cleaned, or repaired water malna. 4. Inetalt restrained pinta at ea bend., toed, and Weer dire0111 eh.ng.0. 5. All wets, mains eholl haws blow-off aseembly It low point end an an vacuum ✓ aga velve et INh point of main. 5. Inane care hydrant assembly so lb stand. plumb and so that he Ica asst oatlst Is cue 15' above the Mnlahad ri ass de. The embly shell have a der tone around hydrant Oat hest 1I' end the pumper port mall fen street or nit awes, 7. The Inaaller ea M cane bedonow prev.rxlee devise InsbHM outside he building and underground, Mee heve s Level III connate d ample w y OP I Level U CentnCtor'e Certificate of ampetency. tr the Magna Is dlnarmthen the becknew preventldn designer, then the Installer must camp, sign, end dote Me plena, In addition to the designer's stamp, dgnstere, and date. wItTARY IIWIR 5511119 1. Alt methods am Menne. Mall w hne at1 of Tukwila Ine.abucbxe Neat end, ' Coo0Wttbn Standards, Wriest ethernet approved. 2. The Contractor Mal mark the end of the ode sewer, load* the property laa, wee a 4 foot ornate* burred 1 x 4, buried In the ground 4 ha. The burled JOINTS to FILTER FABRIC SMALL BE SPLICED AT POSTS USE STARES, TARE RINGS, OR EQUIVALENT TO ATTACH FABRIC TO POSH ' a' MAIL ' • POST PACING MAT BE NCREASED TO a' IF WIRE BACKING IS USED NOTE: FILTER FABRIC FENCES SMALL BE INSTALLE0 ALONG CONTOUR wHENEVER POSSIBLE R0 h0 INSTALL DRIVEWAY CULVERT IF THERE 13 A ROADSIDE DITCH PRESENT. AS PER KING COUNTY ROAD STANDARDS 4 " -8" OUARRY SPALLS GEOTEXTII.E 12' MIN. THICKNESS M!MNUM 4'.4' TRENCH SILT FENCE NTS 1'd' BY 14 Cs TARE OR E0JIvALENT, 19 STANDARD STRENGTH FABRIC U5E0 FILTER FABRIC 11AOfnu TRENCH WTI NAOVE SOIL CR 3/4' -1,5' j WASHED GRAVEL //' • 2•.4• W0c0 POSTS. STEEL FENCE PC5TS, REBAR OR EQUIVALENT SW /4, SEC 26, TWP 23N, RGE 4E PROVIDE FULL WIDTH OF INGRESS/EGRESS AREA CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE NTS 50110 WALLS FILTER MEDIA FOR OEWATERING CATCH BASIN CRATE OVERFLOW POROUS BOTTOM DATE: 6/3/04 CONTACT: I INSTALL IN ALL CATCH BASINS ALONG FRONTAGE AND DOWNSTREAM OF SITE. INSTALL IN NEW CATCH BASINS UNTIL SITE 15 STABILIZED. MAINTFNANCF STAIIDARO$ 1: ANY ACCUMULATED SEDIMENT ON OR AROUND THE FILTER FABRIC PROTECTION SHALL BE REMOVED IMMEDIATELY. SEDIMENT SHALL NOT BE REMOVED WITH WATER. AND ALL SEDIMENT MUST BE DISPOSED OF AS FILL ON SITE OR HAULED OFF SITE. 2. ANY SEDIMENT IN THE CATCH BASIN INSERT SHALL BE REMOVED WHEN THE SEDIMENT HAS FILLED ONE -THIRD OF THE AVAILABLE STORAGE. THE FILTER MEDIA FCR THE INSERT SHALL BE CLEANED CR REPLACED AT LEAST MONTHLY. 3. REGULAR MAINTENANCE IS CRITICAL FOR BOTH FORMS OF CATCH BASIN PROTECTION. UNLIKE MANY FORMS OF PROTECTION THE FAIL GRADUALLY. CATCH BASIN PROTECTION W1LL FAIL SUDDENLY AND COMPLETELY IF NOT MAINTAINED PROPERLY. CATCH BASIN FILTER NTS SC -3 RETAIL BUILDING SCALE: AS NOTED NOTE: THIS DETAIL 15 ONLY SCHEMATIC. ANY INSERT 15 ALLOWED THAT HAS A MIN. 0.5 C.F. OF STORAGE. THE MEANS TO CEWATER THE STORED SEDIMENT. AN OVERFLOW, AND CAN BE EASILY MAINTAINED. 17401 50UTHCENTER PKWY 01:5: DCD DWN OCO BRAD DECKER 117 E 101../15A ST. 9230 ! SEATTLE, WA 98102 PHONE: 206 -545 -4964 EXPIRES 3/14/p s I SITE DEVELOPMENT SERVIOE5 310 20810 50 SE BOTHELt, WA 98012 (425) 481 -9687 (425)4854199 (FAO NOTES & DETAILS 4 of 4 1 1 •H VUfER Q�fAL CAf } LAip St{t30k 1R(t14 H12T". OFI k R AIU[U' 2C.[SF , 8 AI Cu,COLk1 IL'o CLER'� f i :HaTAMO rj Aid' 1 GA J4C V:E' Wi2k':ftCV .. 1 ! WiL0.lu5 'SSC D4TAb4E:CH 4CI1 M'4 < LV E' 'WI1-1,614S' 6 do ) PQi6gURE di4t•121VATI Kt* V.4 LVG . 1 'R . A. 16 t SRC A l fl+ AUIC Wi?∎03,6* ' S' 2 'GH4MPI0'1J' . MAIJUAIE' y�NbL fr : 8 'R�f41:81aD' ,10'o IAA,l . 6'k ECTR(C�N%1tVE, 2 'Ralubl'µp IQO6 -.i2 A.441RU�S SPchjF;PePruP S�P.RrFJA{,t f ' ' 34. ' 1404 •4ZH ' .. ; IS 1613;012A' • 'w .. 23 • 6 .613 }A'15 s3Y `., 41 `� 16.06•SCST4 STREAM DU88LER Pop-UP • u Rcuir�ZON E.NO.'„ — +— l'i∎ VSCH40.4GPV6A4iU AIPk01. 7•PM' rc 1. L C A S �QOPVL�LATERAL v3" C @A I80.PVb3LE6 Y1 MG: ( WHEel SPR, P1818 ' R OUTLP UUDERPAVi$ 0 � If F�`�• ..(l.v,.EvaNGUAiO3(C iL1°?•" FOC4TE, AS DA EEpT LD BV 6EUERAL COIJTR3CToR !WELT • .9 i11GI4 C0J ►[iNG`Vde:d6 Rn •K ma eta ytouT Wluii'klnutd REVISED. 84.3. 04.1 10-2,S• 04• ' D ATi 6.. 04• bRAWu C.B. SHEiT 2 ef `�TAU.T'gt . • 96. lf.:H Oe NLR` p ll. CCRAIG. 6.E}VE LAIJDSCAP ARCHf'8ECT 1684} S8 21'JTH Riptau `44 Taos &. (425)432•1587: S'P12.11J 4L 5C-3',2ETAIL,FNUILDILI4 11401 PARRWAV, TuKWuLA, WA :0 1 \• \,, \ to ' \ \\ \ \ \\ 7 \ \• . \. \ \. \\ \. • • \\ \ \ \ ` N., \ \ \ \\ \ \ ,\ � \ \ \ \ ` \ \ • \ ` \' `\ \\ \ �.;\. \ \ • • \ \ \ \ \ ` ♦ \ \ , \ \♦ ` . \\ \ ` \ \ \ • \ s \ ' \ :" • \ • OrfaCt CF TH15 0 AC TWbLLY a RTHWiST of ' . M A .SGH D. 40 ' PVC AIA1' TYPI aAL 3 CLdsS I60[ T PV SLEEVE UNOER; U o33 AcciSs D IJ:oF 21RC uiT Ii0'. ACRGS.P RIVE; ? (SLC FARTIA (. PLAMAT Ab OVE - LLFT�•. • • S1\ 8OF WASH NGTON NEC TER DSC 3:1 C. N13)114442 '... '''• • liOrAIJIc"AL A.1)A4E .' • S )2 E • silgre,, 4 Ctritt.I, • . \ 2 ATEL•23_722E, • '. ••. '. '' 440302 BluE SINtuCt. • Po •• • SAme a •. . . • .S.M2.12.44.1 ' HTLIO.CRINISOW AZALEA ' SARaIV \., '2033 44.0 R.O. SLEI.N.E2 14 INal< t CYPICESS , bylea.F.Wil.J6tD E U0 M V).4'IJ 5 , ' 23,, LA Saw WAl2■04• NEW ISAL ANS FLAX 12 ai,-,v2:mItt'.°,.'!- • • .• ^ MoNSNS .4 :tEll' NAP DINA. s 134/A2.0. RINE ' '2...1).' 2, . 300ENO2.03J DANN> V i e....R.I.J..44 . . w's . • . TRL,L4,41 RoNMSUCNA...E , 14El'irie11,1 ciA cibtfrm W DAL .JAPCA . ‘ PIGLAPtIAIA6A/S 'AfOSV el' 'tim..$ COWOAA . • t r14 , 1 ,0 • Sf N lo c i . A 1 , i rA ,A4 1% . 1 d • thf:64 • `... AFIrAcRos T.M../N41.1! AI • h0.51 610 W <NAPA)14cy IS 031/1.4 .4 *A011-$ • CueNVANS 425 44 tOMPA(7;1' • '.21 *1 '411/A144 YIAAR1.34' l'ggiAr;;;,gatt7,.;=_,112.,..s.. • U S11 0, l..4NA OoM! .4.6D .. .. . M VS PI 44 AA•O AO .. Riled°. • /• , .f. , 4 ' • v u4A la,c4,m AAv . i. ' NYPIR CALVelm€4 • LaROCIRA 3444 RE6w4ENS ' \-- A-- 2" ' A, , , 5- ,,r ' 2 ., 3 -4 FT. 2 GAL. •3 6.41_. 4 - 5 FT: S 64 L. 2 4 AL . / G A L • • 2 DAL • 3 NAL. • 1 13 *L. 234I. NEW 2 L4t4Fik --3.144.1 -eiLDASthi'AzALFA SHORE PINE PLANTER. • • • W 'TN SEASoNAL 10W12.3 • .• . OWNER. . . „ . . . . GREEN 3122.0RVIT.4.2 ry.. )74tobo, ' 3 15DoNcAlLiA013' AZALEA X. \ • • . . • . • . qthAF ST HoLAVSUCKLE 0 C.) NM TIZSLLIS ' .7 (3 • . '0,4.) , . . 'Mu 1.10-C.F[IN 22 21.1241.b SILEEM AREOEVITAE • " 3S 'R.111131CV.11.iN/c6. '`. • ' 2•41tUIAr 1 0 60•0 .o.C..)'FoR.TIZSLLIS,. ...-...A....- I . .\ ', '. s' N \ , . . • • \s„.. k .....".1 ... i .5- HYPE2iCut ' ' . L •..7 IT NOLIC•csucict E (i'xio.13 :• moyt NAAIN f -441.0•411.4.3.3.Ce ALF-A • T772 NIMMICKI1N.W.K. -_ I- 1:ATSURA TRES • 2 DAVIE; vraux.mufrA A or THIS /3..17 933 IS I./WET/10F 13.3344 403055 acc EssittvE FROM 1...1,CA.K145of.3..tae;. 's • 13. DRAWN C. ES.E - ATSUIILA TRES • 10 .1411-15J16Y.11-11.11143A— k H E RIG L.NA RNOZO. • 1 • DWAEF NIUN“, RNA t•-••2 • KILILNCY,tuLlie.... 1 'boiNHALi NAAPLi 4- 14 tc tumict., 248782: BLUE A' SPRUCE HIMO-CR.O.A.SOm AZALEA 25 - KINN I CAtkIN 105. FLANT.DED. LOCATION GT"ITE OF WAS NGTON REG, la_kr • R/ANT•SZDS • 00510 FRorEILTY ARA ..1.111 LIT LY LAN'S. .04233. Exi.STILJD LAEID5cAPILJ6 2.310 (Twist To. 1140T01), 550 Ift *INN IVY. 611*0t AT 0113. VS Kt OP.. 011$ Lass V3FFAtexiF.. 308 &was (2 ?it Tim) 551 055*381 LlUtStRY RT. FIN. 1341.'," Lai MULCN CLOWN 1t1.14750 15485 L 50 7S TorS.IL • 4 so SeTTet beLoN 2.0 SALL ?EEL 8040 802L4F LAYIR Of EACRPILL gpjk SCIRIPf svms ALI. sums iroolDAXLS Aslb HotiS T�1 • EE STAMM ETA! LtoEcteuelas Cola LES) 51412UB PLA 1,1711JG DLTAJL *30. 5201,3 NO 6 cAEG . - . ALL CO 4,,s SHALL DE HEALTHY, FIELD.GRONN SFECINERS FREE4 DISEASE OE BREAKAGE AH/4 D01N Roor-qouNocouliiiosC, 4. . . . .. .. . .. . , . IN51'41, NNOLES TRICE THZ DIAMETER AND El'OEEPER'THAR 7030002eALE AACT.FILLMThe0112-WALF MTV:NED TOP5C9tMottiLL ( • , .. NALF SAMCE E S. .6:1142. WATE2THOROUONL.T. STALE TREES AMONZNG,TOLANDSCAPE ACGRITERTSARINCNAL (SEE3E1A416 70n7l57l0419QPPLANTvAt51E3 SISNL33MA2EV.1*3312AN55cie2,*11280577WP05TA0 . FoLALL FE rxfir.Ax[exp , •• -... 8ke84ecomft311,61o4*1Na5ra50i.03s08l,0 FO014ALDADFIFOCOLIDFOs5i0105DE3DA5Ew7*17330 , .z:- • .„,..:: . • - APTX:INAkil.S.a.LAi MAO OW CF ALC. IVIIiDS, MD PIS. 1.4-fie ROMS 611.1k '4 . r . -II' , IMEPaXib•I001: APTLY JAIL, ' - • ' .. 3- OLD SOLD JUNIREp_ - 5558 GloW DAMS ETELL.;" I 0.1.4.1 411 RHOS°. -- 3- DWARF 3 - 'HiLio•Glitm.SoLf AzALL A 20 -14i14 - '*402232' DLul. PRUL DATE - 8- 04 SCALE 1 02- 0. 1 GLOW EAREERRY 4 owAir: muemo PDJE 'I t')TRl 1.0C4Tto 01 TN! S S01,*4281DJ$t 561.t4453734* WEST F2085300.M3t.03-11870.. 1,;7A LI-D;S:CO '5C-3.TML U I LD 1..1 . • •.• sau-p.r.v....TEa,fAkk.wAgl-rug,;,LA, WA CrzAirab b !WELT Le0.30,5,G4p8 Aecrl 1TE cr 18845 SE 213111 2R44T01.1.; WA 3033 (4 23)43z-01, Page 3 of 5 Planning Commission Minutes September 16, 2004 ALAN EKBERG MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE STAFF'S F 1NDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS, WITH THE THREE CONDITIONS, FOR CASE NUMBER L04- 032 FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. BILL ARTHUR SECONDED THE MOTION, ALL VOTED IN FAVOR. CASE NUMBER: L04 -036: SC Retail Building APPLICANT: Brad Decker REQUEST: Demolish 9,300 square foot Winners restaurant, excavate approximately 3,000 cubic yards of earth and regrade the site, and construct one 20,315 square foot retail building for five tenants. LOCATION: 17401 Southcenter PY Moira Bradshaw gave the presentation for staff. Ms. Bradshaw requested that it be entered into the record that her staff report was dated August 19 and that she received a letter from JSH Properties on August 26 and revised site plans from the applicant on September 15 Ms. Bradshaw gave a PowerPoint presentation showing slides of the proposed project and the surrounding tenants. Some of the issues she discussed were, site layout, building design, the parking issue, and landscaping, most of which were issues raised in comment letters she received from some of the property owners. She also answered questions. Staff thinks that with the compromise in the new site layout and the improvements that they could recommend approval subject to the following conditions: 1) Meet standard codes 2) Screen utilities 3) Enhance building elevations 4) Modify material at the base 5) Change the southeast corner 6) Enlarge the walkway to accommodate the door as well as the overhang, with a minimum 8 ft. sidewalk, and lighting to enhance the building design 7) Encourage applicant t o continue t o engage with the adjacent property owner t o r esolve some of the pedestrian hazard issues such as - connect the parking in the front - upgrade landscaping 8) The applicant came up with a new light fixture for the front of the building. The Planning Commissioners were advised that, before they make a motion to close the hearing that they discuss among themselves bow they would like to proceed. Option 1: Close the hearing and approve project as presented to them and articulate findings and conclusions to support the decision and the conditions. Option 2: Close the hearing and direct staff to return with prepared findings and conclusions. Option 3: Continue the hearing to allow the applicant to return with any modifications and, staff review and prepare findings and conclusions. Commissioner Ekberg requested another option: Attachment C Page 4 of 5 Planning Commission Minutes September 16, 2004 Option 4: continue the hearing and direct staff to prepare recommendations. Brad Decker the applicant testified and he provided some history on the project and apologized for the last minute changes. Mr. Decker thanked the Planning Commissioner for their consideration and also answered questions. Catherine Drews, representing JoAnn's Fabric testified, expressing their concerns. She requested that the Planning Commission continue the public hearing and extend the comment period, so JoAnn's can review the current site plans and provide their comments. Chuck Wiegman testified on behalf of the owner for ENG. He expressed their concerns with the building height and parking. Mr. Wiegman also answered questions. Dana Moore, representing Ethan Allen asked the Planning Commission if they had received a comment letter dated July 27th from them, addressed to Moira Bradshaw. Bob Schofield, for the applicant testified. He gave some background on his work in the community and also gave an overview of the proposed project. He talked about improvements made by the applicant and stated they are providing a healthier center. Mr. Schofield also answered questions. BILL ARTHUR MADE A MOTION TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC H ) ARING DELIBERATION ON CASE NUMBER L04 -036 TO OCTOBER 28TH AND FOR STAFF TO PREPARE RECOMMENDATIONS AND FINDINGS. ALLAN EKBERG SECONDED THE MOTION. VERN MERYHEW MOVED TO AMEND THE CONTItYUATION DATE TO OCTOBER 14 ALLAN EKBERG SECONDED THE MOTION, ALL VOTED IN FAVOR. Director's Report Chair Malina called a five minute recess. The public hearing resumed Director's Report • Upcoming BAR — Application received for Southcenter Mall revisions and parking revisions • Clarification on edits,to the draft SAO section - Variation of Standard Wetland Buffer Width. Currently reads - The Director may reduce the standard wetland buffer on a case -by -case basis, provided the reduced buffer aFea does not contain slopes 20% 15°!, or greater. Etc. Revised to read - The Director may reduce the standard wetland buffer on a case -by -case basis, provided the reduced buffer area does not contain slopes 15% or greater. Etc. • It was the consensus of the Planning-Commissioners that the letter that Vern wrote would be included in the Comp Plan material to the City Council. • Answer to draft SAO questions — • August 13, 2004 memo from staff requested guidance on the question as set forth below: "2. The language in TMC 18.45.040 C.4.a. that is reflected in 18.45.CC G. and 18.45.EE G was revised not only to change the minimum amount of buffer width but also to reflect the new threshold for slopes (15% instead of 20 %) and to clarify language on buffers. Did the Commission intend: a. to restore all the language from TMC 18.45.040 C.4.a.; or PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING NOVEMBER 18, 2004 REGARDING THE BRAD DECKER MATTER CASE #104 -036 CHAIRMAN MAUNA COMMISSIONER EKBERG COMMISSIONER MERYHEW COMMISSIONER PETERSON COMMISSIONER MARVIN COMMISSIONER ARTHUR TRANSCRIBER CHARLOTTE CORBLEY ADOPTION OF THE MINUTES FROM 10 -14 -04 MICROPHONE CHANNEL 4 DOES NOT SEEM TO BE WORKING AT ALL WHICH IS NORMALLY THE MICROPHONE FOR THE SPEAKERS PRESENTING TO THE COMMISIONERS Malina: With that this is a continuation of a public hearing so we won't have the swearing in ceremony, since we've already done that. And with that we'll open up L04 -036 and we'll hear from staff at this time. Gierloff: Good evening. For the record my name is Nora Gierloff, with the Department of Community Development. I've taken over this project from Moira Bradshaw, a previous staff member. Uh, as you've mentioned this is the third hearing on this subject, the SPT retail building, the replacement for the (unintelligible). And what I'd like to do is just um, briefly outline where we left the project at the last meeting and then we'll walk through the staff report and talk about the changes and the solutions that the applicant has presented in response to direction at the last meeting. So uh, the planning commission has gone through staff's recommendations and there was a list of items that they felt needed to be addressed before they were comfortable making'.a final decision on the project. So the applicant has gone back and has revised drawings that were in the packet today and um, and has also submitted a narrative of how he feels he has addressed each of the items (unintelligible) and how he has gone through changes (unintelligible). So the first items was to provide four feet of unobstructed pedestrian walkway along the building frontage. And uh, there was to be.... ALL THROUGH THIS PORTION OF THE PROCEEDING SOMEONE SEEMS TO BE WORKING WITH MICROPHONE NUMBER THREE CAUSING A GREAT DEAL OF STATIC AND MAKING IT IMPOSSIBLE TO HEAR ALL OF WHAT WAS BEING SAID. Gierloff: There would be, originally there was (unintelligible) to the sidewalk along the main frontage of the building. That (unintelligible) six and seven foot sidewalk along on the frontage. However the, there was a two foot overhang from the cars that would intrude into the sidewalk and then there were swinging doors. And the applicant has revised that to be sliding doors so that there would either be four to five feet of clear walkway along the front of the building as directed by the planning commission. Uh, there was 1 also some discussion about the landscape island that was adjacent to the twenty parking stalls that are to the north of the project, near Ethan Allen and the condition of that landscape. Um, at the last meeting ING, the property'manager had said that they hadn't been aware that they were responsible for that area and agreed to um, take maintenance and sort of spiff that up since it wasn't in great condition. The current applicant, Brad Decker, has only control of areas on the very far end of that landscape island and has agreed to provide some additional plantings as you see on your landscape drawing in your packet. Um, another item was to revise the landscape plans and incorporate some plantings along the rear of the building that would match the Joann planting across that drive isle. And they have incorporated and heavily bamboo (unintelligible) to try to carry a little bit of the same landscape theme and create a more unified image for that passageway along the rear. The next item was resolving the southern most handicapped stalls, which is directly adjacent to the Southcenter Parkway on the very eastern edge of the front there. And the applicant has rotated that stall to be parallel to the barrier there, so that there's no impediment to reversing in and out of that stall. The next item which was subject of considerable discussion at the last meeting was trying to resolve all the pedestrian safety issues on site without any reliance on any changes being made on the surrounding properties. Mr. Decker (unintelligible) property management company. And there are a couple ways that they had addressed that. Um, first to make it clear to motorists that the front parking area was not continuous they added an additional hedge to go along the strip there, so that it would be a visual clue to people that they needed to start going around the (unintelligible). The second item was the walkway connection from the front of the building to the area (unintelligible) parking would be flush (unintelligible) parking area, so there wouldn't be (unintelligible). And then the third item was about a plaza on the southern edge of this element. And that plaza would be flush with the existing curb and landscaping on the adjacent side and that there would be two areas that would provide a (unintelligible) transition area for (unintelligible). There would be one southern edge, then one at the southwestern corner where it would (unintelligible). Um, also there was a request to submit a landscape plan that was updated and incorporated all the new changes to the site plan and some plan modifications that staff had recommended, such as the northern (unintelligible)on Southcenter Parkway that actually (unintelligible). An updated landscape plan was included in your packet. And it also um, updated that, to show the landscape area in the rear of the building adjacent(unintelligible). There was (unintelligible) elevation of the raised planting island, (unintelligible) plaza and (unintelligible) on the first page of your packet there was three foot tall (unintelligible). And then there was another condition that ground and building (unintelligible) utilities be located and screened so they would be the least visible possible. And the response was that um, the exact location and size of utilities services hasn't been pinned down yet. The applicants added a note to the drawing to indicate that they should be located and screened to the best of their ability. And that's something that staff (unintelligible). It would, it would be incorporated into the project, but hasn't been fully (unintelligible) yet. (Unintelligible). Another suggestion from the board was to um, back -light the exterior at (unintelligible) along the rear, to give the impression more of the rear also being a storefront. They had proposed some glass here, but they had not wanted to clear because that would be a storage area along-there. And Commissioner Peterson had suggested that it be lit, in order, you know, to provide some light and (unintelligible). So that's another thing that the applicant has expressed a willingness to do, but that's not something that would show up on your (unintelligible). There was a need to select colors for the site furnishings like the trash can and benches, things like that down there (unintelligible) color. The existing street furniture on the rest of the site is also (unintelligible). And so staff's recommendation is that the applicant has addressed each of the items that you called out as areas of concern, with the exception of the two items being addressed at the time of building permit, those changes are reflected in the site plans that you have before you. I'd be happy to answer any questions (unintelligible). Malina: Any/questions of staff at this time? Ekberg: I just have one with regard to the two items. That would be addressed during the permitting process. Just what is our mechanism to track those items in case, for instance the permit wasn't issued for a year from now. How do we track those things? 3 Gierloff: Uh, we put it in as a note on our parcel in permit system and so it just flags the planner (unintelligible). Ekberg: Thank you. Malina: Any other questions of staff at this time. And we'll hear from the applicant. Decker: I don't have anything to add, but if there's any questions, I, I'll be happy to answer any questions. Ekberg: I have one question. Between the last... Malina: We need you to state your name and address for us though please. Decker: And it's Brad Decker, 117 East Lousia,Street, #230, Seattle, Washington, 98102. Ekberg: Between the last time we've met, how has the relationship changed between your business and the businesses surrounding you, at all? Decker: We have not contacted us and we have not contacted them. Ekberg: Okay. Thank you. Malina: Anything else of the applicant? Peterson: Maybe just the, the color of the bike rack? Um, why is it black and everything else is green? Is that... Decker: (unintelligible) people can actually put their bikes there. Peterson: Okay. Black makes it more visible? Decker: Yeah. (Unintelligible). So... Malina: Anything else? For those of you that signed up in the past, if you have anything that you would like to add? Drews: (unintelligible). Malina: Okay. And if you'd state your name and address please for the record again. Drews: I'm Catherine Drews, new address 1111 Third Avenue, 4 Suite 3400, Seattle, Washington, 98101. And I'm here representing Joann's Fabrics. I just have two quick points. Um, ING (unintelligible) has counsel and has provided a letter that they would like me to read into the record and I have a copy here. Would you like me to read it? Malina: You have to, you can go ahead and read it, but uh, make sure that the staff has a copy of that for our record. Drews: (unintelligible) give it to you (unintelligible). This is a copy of the original. The original (unintelligible). The letter begins, "Dear Miss Gierloff, ", I'm sorry if I'm (unintelligible), "and the Board of Architectural Review. We represent ING (unintelligible) Partners, the owners of this property immediately adjacent to the above referenced proposal. Their property is developed for existing retail uses. At prior board meetings they submitted written and oral comments expressing significant concerns for the proposal. The proposal would interfere with parking and access to the site, significantly impair visibility of the retail structures and it fails to meet the City's design criteria that the proposal adequately addresses the relationship of the structure and the site to the adjoining areas. In past communications with the board, ING has suggested that an alternative location for the building be created and reviewed to address the problems with this proposal. This letter in good faith effort, an alternative layout that utilizes different properties has not been obtainable. However, this does not mean the board should stop consideration of other alternatives and just approve the development (unintelligible) proposed. The staff report and the report of the City's independent consultant all document the many problems of the current site plan. In particular the report of the independent consultant prepared by Freedman, Tung and Bottomly, which is attachment F to the August 19t 2004 staff report, stated that the current site plan had a poor relationship with existing buildings and not attribute to the creation of street frontage. The independent consultant developed an alternative for reconfiguring the building entirely within the applicant's property and that alternative is vastly superior. We believe the board to give an inadequate consideration proposed by the City's independent consultant and we'd request further consideration of this alternative. It appears that the board did not consider this alternative, because the applicant 5 refused to cooperate and provide any drawings of the alternative. The applicant has been willing to make only some minor changes to the proposal to try to alleviate a few of the worst conditions it would create. However, it is still not a proposal that is consistent with City design or new criteria. We urge you to consider further the alternative proposed by the independent consultant and require the applicant to provide drawings of that proposal so that they can be properly and fairly evaluated. Thank you for consideration of our comments. Very truly yours, Melanie v. McCutchin." And I guess, you know, Joann's would also like you to consider the alternative site plan. It seems that the staff has gone to um, has come up with good recommendations that would alleviate some of these problems that we are concerned with, mainly the creation of the alley -like structure and took the liberty today to go back and review the staff report from August and there was a lot of concern about the alley -like structure. So we urge the board not to approve the (unintelligible) as submitted and to review the procedure (unintelligible) August 19t And we ask you to keep the public hearing open to review these alternatives. Thank you. Malina: Any questions of.. -. Is there anyone else that would like to speak at that time? Staff like to.... Gierloff: Happy to answer questions. Malina: Any questions of staff? Man: No. Ekberg: I have one question of staff. As everyone is aware the planning commission relies on the recommendation of staff for certain pieces of information. In regards to the design criteria, does this project meet City standards for design criteria? Gierloff: We are recommending approval (unintelligible). Malina: With that I will close the public hearing and go into deliberation. Arthur: Well I get to go first again I guess. Well the matter at hand, it seems like we've seen this, what this will be the third time now and I think that to my recollection, at least as long as I've been on the BAR, it sets an indoor record for the same matter coming 6 back and back and back. I am pleased to see that of those three times, this time we seem to have a set of complete plans. I appreciate that. We seem not to have any late additional changes in what we are being expected to review. I appreciate that. My concerns and they were reflected in the minutes, where I questioned whether we should be, as a board, asked to approve something that was stated to be substandard and potentially hazardous. And that concerned me. And it seems as though those situations have been eliminated. We're no longer looking at "substandard situations or a potentially hazardous situation." So that being my major concern has been resolved. It took three times for the applicant to get a full set of plans to us, so I think it was brought up in testimony by others and by at least one um, BAR member about the configuration and the alley -way and the relationship that the structure had to adjacent buildings. I guess in trying to understand this last set of plans and measurements and additional sidewalk, I think the applicant has probably done enough mitigation, if that's the right word, to get across the threshold for approval. They certainly haven't gone any further than they absolutely needed to in my opinion to get over that threshold. But over the threshold they have gotten. I um, it's disappointing to me. I expect a more from applicants in the way of bringing something in to the Tukwila community that the community can take pride in. And to me just barely peeking over the threshold is that level of design or what have you that I'm used to seeing on the BAR. So that is disappointing. There are a couple of other developments on Southcenter Parkway that have just eeked over the edge of design review at minimum criteria. I still see some verbiage in the document, that you're going to have to work with adjoining owners and I don't have much faith that that's going to happen. It's taken three weeks to reach agreement with staff or reach some level of agreement with staff and with no additional of contact with adjoining property owners. Uh, I don't see much (unintelligible) that agreement, reaching agreement with adjoining property owners is ever going to take place. But in final analysis I'd say they have crept over the threshold of minimum acceptability. Ekberg: I'd like to pass at this time? Malina: Sure. Meryhew: I, I think the fact that we went through three sessions 7 on this thing and uh, I'm satisfied that the uh, applicant has met the requirements and the design meets the BAR requirements. Um, I, I'm all for approval of this program. Marvin: I can see that they have, the applicant has addressed some of the, uh, the issues that were, that came up at the last meeting and I appreciate that. And the design I think is a fine design. I'm still having a problem with the footprint of the building and the relationship of the structure to the existing structures. Um, that's something that hasn't really been addressed. It's been brought up. Nothing (unintelligible) and I think in all good conscious um, I don't feel I can vote in favor of this project for, for those reasons. Peterson: Um, I feel as though the applicant through the discovery process in a couple of sessions has uh, um, made it to the threshold of which Commissioner Arthur mentioned. Um, I try to put myself in three different viewpoints, the property owner, the adjacent property owners and then the people going down Southcenter Parkway and I, I think that the applicant is trying to maximize the property use, while complying with all the standards. Like I said, I think it's a challenging piece of property. , They've come to us with a solution that I think meets that threshold. Um, at the same time, um, I, anyways I think I'm okay with this and I could support it. Malina: I'm going to have to agree with Mr. Arthur. I, I think that this project could have been much better than what it was, um, or what it's going to be. Um, it has met the minimum requirements and um, that's about all I can say for that. And with that I'll entertain a motion. Ekberg: I'd like to just go on record that um, although it may seem to have been an arduous process, it's a process that was necessary in order to understand and identify property rights of businesses within the City of Tukwila, on both sides mind you. I'm saddened that there;wasn't a way to come about with a compromise between the adjacant property owners. Um, at the same time, um, pouring over the Tukwila comprehensive plan and looking at land use goals, my goal 10.1 recognizes the Tukwila urban center as a regional commercial industrial complex. And one of the goals within the City is to encourage economic development. And the BAR sits to allow and approve development to occur, based on guidelines that have been established by the City. 8 Malina: Meryhew: Malina: Ekberg: Malina: Malina: Marvin: Man: According to the information that I received from our staff, those guidelines have been met. Therefore I am in support of this project. Okay. I'll entertain a motion at this time. I'll make a motion that item L04 -036, the um, retail building, demolition of the Winners Restaurant and development of the new building there at 17401 Park, Southcenter Parkway, be uh, be approved with staff's findings and conclusions and uh, the recommendation caught out in the staff report. I have a motion. Do I have a second? I'll second. I have a motion and second. All those in favor? COMMISSIONERS IN UNISON: Aye. Those opposed? Opposed. (Unintelligible). I certify, under penalty of perjury of the laws of the State of Washington, that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my ability. Dated this B day of January, 2005. arlotte Corb Transcriber 9 NAME ADDRESS CITY, STATE, ZIP PHONE E -MAIL 1. 6 cl Decke-r i1 Aal , Gocri„ 5! irz30 .Seciele ( 'MO 1.- Sc M'. 4 9 el al-- 2. 1/ t1:C.s MI 3 L f -0' SP le a C.c.,�1 ( P) - .S d . Gaul ?o -: - , ......1-r,4 -m, 4...o 1 b a-•- ) P , ds15 e. r* 1 S CTiz � GOA,- a- S3 -3 co- 0303 —�—'— 4. - o P, 56.1.4 -oc'1t 1 In Lav,•,A`.1'Sr` , 41.140.- 2.-dc. cowl -wrti , 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING NOVEMBER 18, 2004 C Persons wishing to speak, swear or affirm to tell the truth in the testimony that they will be giving. 6 HCMP H ILLIs CLARK MARTIN & PETERSON Ill lt' offlcea Board of Architectural Review c/o Ms. Nora Gierloff Planner Supervisor City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 -2544 November 18, 2004 Re: Development at 17401 Southcenter Parkway, File No. L04 -036 Dear Ms. Gierloff and Board of Architectural Review: MERITAS LAW FIRMS WORLDWIDE Hand Delivered We represent ING Clarion Partners, the owners of property immediately adjacent to the above - referenced proposal. Their property is developed with existing retail uses. At prior Board meetings, they submitted written and oral comments expressing significant concerns with the proposal. The proposal would interfere with parking and access for their site, significantly impair visibility of their retail structures, and it fails to meet the City's design criteria that the proposal adequately address the relationship of the structure and site to the adjoining area. In past communications with the Board, ING has suggested that an alternative location for the building be created and reviewed to address the problems with this proposal. Despite our good faith efforts, an alternative layout that utilizes different properties has not been attainable. However, this does not mean the Board should stop consideration of other alternatives and just approve the development as currently proposed. The staff reports and the report of the City's independent consultant all document the many problems with the current site plan. In particular, the report of the independent consultant, prepared by Freedman Tung & Bottomley (Attachment F to August 19, 2004 staff report), stated that the current site plan had a poor relationship with existing buildings and did not contribute to the creation of street frontage. The independent consultant developed an alternative for reconfiguring the building entirely within the applicant's property, and that alternative is vastly superior. 500 Galland Building 1221 Second Avenue Seattle, Washington 98101 -2925 phone 206.623.1745 fax 206.623.7789 www.hcmp.com A PROFESSIONAL SERVICE CORPORATION Ms. Nora Gierloff November 18, 2004 Page 2 of 2 We believe the Board has given inadequate consideration to the alternative proposed by the City's independent consultant, and we request further consideration of this alternative. It appears that the Board did not consider this alternative because the applicant refused to cooperate and provide any drawings of it. The applicant has been willing to make only some minor changes to the proposal to try to alleviate a few of the worst conditions it would create. However, it is still not a proposal that is consistent with City design review criteria. We urge you to consider further the alternative proposed by the independent consultant and require the applicant to provide drawings of that proposal so that they can be properly and fully evaluated. Thank you for consideration of our comments. Very truly yours, 7 ,ticaczb) c alt/L e attAl Melody B. McCutcheon MBM:kat E -Mail: MBM @hcmp.com cc: Steve Brunette Chris Roscoe Chuck Weigman #289269 18438 -002 677901!.doc HCMP 7 HEARING DATE: NOTIFICATION: FILE NUMBER: APPLICANT: OWNERS: REQUESTS: City of Tukwila SUPPLEMENTAL STAFF REPORT TO THE BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW PREPARED 6 OCTOBER 2004 L04 -036 Brad Decker Brad Decker Design approval for a revised 18,677 square foot one story retail building with associated site improvements. ASSOCIATED PERMITS: Demolition of the 9,300 square foot Winners restaurant LOCATION: 17401 Southcenter Parkway COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Tukwila Urban Center ZONE DESIGNATION: Tukwila Urban Center SEPA DETERMINATION: Determination of Nonsignificance STAFF: Moira Carr Bradshaw Steven M. Mullet, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director Opened on 16 September 2004 and continued to 14 October 2004 On 14 July 2004 Notice of Application was mailed to surrounding properties and posted on the site. The Notice of Hearing was posted and mailed to surrounding properties and sent to the Seattle Times for publication on 13 August 2004. 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 Staff Report to the Board of Architectural Review Supplemental Edition ATTACHMENTS: A. Revised Site Plan/Building Elevations B. Sign Elevation C. Building Light Fixture D. Bollard Light Elevation E. Bench Elevation F. Trash Receptacle Elevation 2 L04 -036 17401 Southcenter Parkway Staff Report to the Board of Architectural Review Supplemental Edition VICINITY /SITE INFORMATION BACKGROUND PUBLIC COMMENT . FINDINGS 3 L04 -036 17401 Southcenter Parkway Project Description The single story, 20,039 square foot retail building with accessory parking, landscaping, loading, and trash/recycling is revised to an 18,677 square foot building. The August 2004 staff report for the SC -3 Retail Building at 17401 Southcenter PY recommended that the Board of Architectural Review continue the hearing on the project and that the applicant be directed to revise the application to address the following areas: • The relationship between the proposed building, its surrounding site and the adjacent buildings; • The design of the building; • The lighting of the building; • The pedestrian environment at the entrance to the building; • The amount and type of plants used in the landscape; • The lighting of the northwest corner of the site. Two letters of comment, which were received from adjacent property owners or businesses; were included with the August staff report. A third comment letter was distributed to the BAR at the hearing that represented the concerns of the adjacent property owner and manager. The two adjacent businesses as well as the site manager representing the adjacent property owner attended the September hearing. In addition to the concerns expressed in writing the following issues were raised at the hearing: • Visibility blockage from the street to Park Place Shopping Center; • Unattractive, unsafe relationship between the westem "rear" side of the proposed building and the eastern side (front entry to Jo- Ann's) of the Park Place Shopping Center; • Unsafe conditions associated with the north driveway — particularly left turns out of the driveway and interference between a traffic queue exiting the site and entering the applicant's front parking area; • Inadequate and poorly designed parking areas causing off -site parking impacts; • Private reciprocal parking easement concerns; • Utility line conflicts. Staff Report to the Board of Architectural Review L04 -036 Supplemental Edition 17401 Southcenter Parkway The previously summarized comments expressed concern about not having adequate lighting in the north parking area and for pedestrian safety for those customers and employees walking across the common driveway. Concern is raised due to a history of property vandalism/theft. Ethan Allen noted that the overall condition of an existing stop sign and plantings that are located within the common access areas is poor. As stated above, Ethan Allen shares the adjacent property owner's concern about the adequacy of the parking supply and the ability for motorists to make a left turn out of the common access drive. The owner of Jo -Ann objects to the location of the building relative to their space and the impact this has on their store visibility and parking and customer safety and comfort. Design issues are addressed below under Design Review Criteria and Conclusions. BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW ACTION After taking testimony at the hearing on the subject proposal, the BAR continued the hearing and directed staff to prepare revised findings and conclusions for review and consideration by the BAR. The hearing was continued to October 14, 2004. Staff requested the applicant to prepare revised drawings that formalized their revised proposal. The following findings and conclusions are based upon the revised plans contained in Attachments A — F and take into account the written and verbal testimony contained in the record. DESIGN REVIEW CRITERIA 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; To reiterate, the site itself consists of one parcel that is divided into two pieces. The main and largest portion of the lot is L shaped. The building is proposed to be located so that there is a double bay of parking along a majority of the building's front and a single bay of parking in the rear. The remaining portion of the lot is located on the other side of another property, which is developed as a 33 -foot wide common access driveway with landscaping. 20 parking stalls are available on the northern piece of the lot and are already developed as parking. The applicant designs the site plan to allow two foot vehicle overhangs into landscape areas and sidewalks. This technique allows the site design to maximize the landscaping area and sidewalks on a site and eliminates the nuisance of wheel stops where they are not needed to prevent encroachment. 4 Staff Report to the Board of Architectural Review L04 -036 Supplemental Edition 17401 Southcenter Parkway Several areas in the front parking area will need to be modified to accommodate the minimum front yard landscape depth of 15 feet and parking stall depth of 19 feet or 17. feet and 17 feet respectively as discussed above. A six and seven foot sidewalk along the east business entrances of the building replace the five and six foot sidewalk in the original proposal. However, two feet of overhang for car stalls needs to be considered at both the wall location along the north half of the eastern facade and in front of the handicap and full size stall locations. No dimension has been provided and according to scale may be only one foot in depth in front of the wall. The store entrances will have doors that swing out three feet and cars will overhang two feet onto some sections of the walkway leaving two feet of sidewalk in others. The State Building Code requires 48 feet of clear walkway. The applicant will ask the Building Department to approve grading the parking lot so that the handicap parking stalls end up flush with the building sidewalk. Wheel stops would be proposed in these instances where adequate curbing does not separate cars from the adjacent sidewalk. Staff will recommend that if such a technique is used and approved that the car ramp not flare but be incorporated into a gradual change in parking lot grade. The required three foot rear sidewalk is expanded to five feet in order to allow for vehicle overhang and eliminate the need for concrete wheel stops. Landscape areas have been added to the revised plans at the northwest corner of the building and along the north and west sides. The interior parking lot landscape calculations have not been provided but the landscape area has increased from the previous compliant plan. b. Parking and service areas should be located, designed and screened to moderate the visual impact of large paved areas; Parking for the site is divided into three areas around the site - to the north adjacent to Ethan Allen, across a 33 foot wide common access easement; to the west along the back of the proposed building; and to the east between the building and Southcenter PY, where approximately half of the required spaces are located. The minimum number of stalls required for retail are provided, no restaurants will be allowed to be licensed for the site without a variance or special permission. The dumpster and recycling area are also relocated to the northwest rear of the building and are screened with the same material as the building and has been relocated away from the adjacent business entry. Material for the gate is unclear. Five square feet for every 1,000 gross square feet of retail building is required for recycling, which equals 93 square feet. Staff Report to the Board of Architectural Review L04 -036 Supplemental Edition 17401 Southcenter Parkway c. The height and scale of each building should be considered in relation to the site. The building varies in height from 20 to 33 + feet and has not changed. 2. Relationship of Structure and Site to Adjoining Area. a. Harmony on texture, lines and masses is encouraged; The building and site plan are modified so that the south side of the building is treated like a building "front." The south building wall is also modified so that the oblique building wall is now perpendicular to the building in the rear and the streetfront. b. Appropriate landscape transition to adjoining properties should be provided; The landscape adjacent to the 20 parking stalls to the north of the building are owned by the adjacent property owner and not proposed for upgrade. The applicant states that the adjacent owner is unwilling at this time to allow him to upgrade the existing landscaping. A small area of pavement and parking aisle curbing is left over between the end of the three foot sidewalk on the south side of the building, which could create a tripping hazard and is a poor transition. (See the southwest most corner of the site.) Several additional landscape islands have been added to the north and west edges of the property that will assist in defining the common driveway boundaries. c. Public buildings and structures should be consistent with the established neighborhood character; None shown. d. Compatibility of vehicular pedestrian circulation patterns and loading facilities in terms of safety, efficiency and convenience should be encouraged; The two loading spaces required by the Zoning Code are located parallel and adjacent to the northwest comer of the building adjacent to the common access drives and the rear of the building. The two spaces have been separated and a landscape area has been added. e. Compatibility of on -site vehicular circulation with street circulation should be encouraged. The development uses existing curb cuts and entrances /exits and parking lot circulation drives to access parking stalls and parking areas around the building. The new parking area fronting Southcenter PY abuts the adjacent property's parking area to the south but does not connect. No landscape transition has been provided on the 6 Staff Report to the Board of Architectural Review L04 -036 Supplemental Edition 17401 Southcenter Parkway subject site between the two separate parking areas. In fact, motorists using the southernmost parking stall, which is a handicap stall, are effectively given ten feet in which to reverse in order to exit the stall. 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; The subject site sits above the street and is on a visual axis as one heads south on Southcenter PY. The applicant chooses to place a pole sign in a location that will allow it to act as the focal point for the development. b. Grades of walks, parking spaces, terraces and other paved areas should promote safety and provide an inviting and stable appearance; The applicant proposes excavating approximately 3,000 cubic yards of earth in order to meet the maximum grade of 5% for the parking stalls in the front of the building. A combination of a ramp and steps provide access to the building entrances. The grade of the parking lot will be modified to eliminate curbing between the handicap stalls and the building sidewalk. Pedestrian walkways have been added to the west, south and east building facades connecting to existing pedestrian pathways. c. Landscape treatment should enhance architectural features, strengthen vistas and important axis, and provide shade; The City has adopted specific tree species for the urban center and identifies Red Oak for Southcenter PY. A revised landscape plan has not been provided however, the site plan shows the addition of landscape areas to the north and west sides as well as raised planting beds and trees in grates in the plaza. d. In locations where plants will be susceptible to injury by pedestrian or motor traffic, mitigating steps should be taken; The north parking area is laid perpendicular to the proposed building with landscaping separating the customers from the businesses. No special treatment is proposed to allow customer pass throughs between parking and businesses. 7 Staff Report to the Board of Architectural Review L04 -036 Supplemental Edition 17401 Southcenter Parkway A parking area on the adjacent southern property will have a similar situation with parking that abuts the building perpendicularly yet is separated from the building entrances by landscaping. e. Where building sites limit planting, the placement of trees or shrubs in paved areas is encouraged; The applicant shows plantings will occur in one foot deep beds along the east and west sides of the building as well as on planted trellises in the rear. Landscape areas do not correspond with the trellises shown on the building elevations. f Screening of service yards, and other places that tend to be unsightly, should be accomplished by use of walls, fencing, planting or a combination; The recycling and trash area are shown relocated in the northwest corner of the building, which is effectively the rear of the building and away from the surrounding entrances. This area is shown surrounded by the same material as the building. 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; The landscape areas to the south and north of the building that are owned by the adjacent property owner will likely be damaged because of their location between the businesses and the customers and employees and the inability of the applicant to modify adjacent properties. 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. The applicant has revised the submittal to show a tubular fixture, see Attachment C, that will be mounted on the columns allowing an up and down lighting, which will highlight the columns during the evenings. Parking lot fixtures are added at strategic locations around the site including the separate north piece of the lot. The applicant also provides ground mounted bollard lighting in the plaza area on the south side of the property. 4. Building Design. a. Architectural style is not restricted, evaluation of a project should be based on quality of its design and relationship to its surroundings; 8 Staff Report to the Board of Architectural Review L04 - 036 Supplemental Edition 17401 Southcenter Parkway b. Buildings should be to appropriate scale and in harmony with permanent neighboring developments; The building is modified to attempt an upgrade of the west or "rear" of the building. The rear effectively faces a neighboring building, tenant space, parking and circulation area. Parapets and canopies are added along the rear wall at both the north and south ends. Across from the Jo -Ann's entrance, opaque glass is shown between a set of columns. All the column bases are treated with the tile duplicating treatment around all four sides. Along the west facade instead of windows in the remaining "bays" the applicant provides trellises or a grid pattern similar to the moulding pattem established with the window framing along the north, east and south facades. 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; The building's construction is to be painted concrete panels with a stucco finish. The cornice will be similar or shaped foam plastic with metal coping. The tile around the base will provide durability and a washable surface where wear will be the hardest. The dominant use of glass between the column -like vertical elements and under the canopies and the open appearance to the front and corners of the structure creates a "market" style of structure. The building entrances are not obvious elements of the design. The windows are clear glass in anodized aluminum frames that are colored grayish white. The canopies have been added so there is a consistent treatment along the elevation. Depth varies from five to three feet in depth along the east facade, eighteen inches along the north facade and two feet on the south and three feet on the west. Five feet of depth is now shown for the parapets. In addition the top of the parapets are finished with a standing seam metal roof in the same material as the tower treatment in the northeast comer. The cornice treatment has been modified so that relief is provided at most column tops. d. Colors should be harmonious, with bright or brilliant colors used only for accent; The building colors are predominately cream "stucco." The applicant has submitted a blue tile for the base of the columns that will match the dominant blue accent used on cornice. Accent colors are the blue, turquoise and red. e. Mechanical equipment or other utility hardware on roof ground or buildings should be screened from view; 9 Staff Report to the Board of Architectural Review L04 -036 Supplemental Edition 17401 Southcenter Parkway Mechanical equipment is proposed for rooftops and would be screened by the parapets of the building. The roof drainage system will function primarily internally. The roof will slope and drain from east to west and tie into the storm drain system internal to the building wall. Scuppers will be located along the west building wall and painted the wall color. f. Exterior lighting should be part of the architectural concept. Fixtures, standards, and all exposed accessories should be harmonious with building design; Lighting of the building has been added at the columns so that they will be illuminated during darkness. g. Monotony of design in single or multiple building projects should be avoided. Variety of detail, form and siting should be used to provide visual interest. The building measures 245 feet by 85 feet approximately. One offset of five feet is proposed along the front facade. A curved area along the rear, west facade is to accommodate a "no- build" easement for the existing building located behind the proposed structure. The no build easement was required per the Uniform Building Code when the structure to the west was constructed. The applicant proposes metal canopies as a detail to provide interest along the front facade and trellises and canopies along the back facade. The edge of the roofline has a variety of steps. The parapet depth has been modified and deepened from 2.5 feet to five feet in depth. S. 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. The applicant's revised site plan shows a pedestrian area along the south side of the building. The plaza, as well as all the walking surfaces, are buff toned concrete and is defined by raised planters that incorporate benches and trash cans. The square scoring pattern will define the pavement of the plaza area. The required bike rack is also located in the plaza. See Attachment E and F for the elevation of the proposed benches and trash cans. The applicant indicates that the proposed color for the bench will be green to match the color in the Park Place Center pedestrian areas. The applicant provides an elevation of a proposed pole sign along Southcenter PY. A curving arch over a square frame face is accented with the building's accent colors. 10 Staff Report to the Board of Architectural Review Supplemental Edition L04 -036 17401 Southcenter Parkway Attachment B gives the dimensions of the sign face, which measures 8.6 feet by 7 feet, that is slightly larger than 60 square feet. The sign has been setback so that it meets the minimum required setback for the sign's height. Half the sign will overhang the parking lot but have a 21.3 foot clearance for passing vehicles and trucks. The exact dimension of the lot frontage will determine if the size of the sign is adequate or if it will need to be reduced to 50 square feet. All signs will be subject to the Tukwila Sign b. Lighting in connection with miscellaneous structures and street furniture should meet the guidelines applicable to site, landscape and buildings. Bollard lighting (See Attachment D) is proposed in the pedestrian plaza and complements the general quality of the plaza furnishings. In addition to the specific criteria of the Board of Architectural Review, proposed development must show consistency with adopted plans and regulations (TMC 18.100.030.) Below are the specific policies from the adopted Comprehensive Plan that relate to the location of the proposal. 1. Comprehensive Plan Policies a.. All Commercial Areas Goal 1.7: "Commercial districts that are visually attractive and add value to the community, are visitor and pedestrian friendly, are designed with pride and constructed with quality workmanship, are secure and safe with adequate lighting and convenient access, are uncongested with smooth flowing traffic patterns, are well- maintained with adequate streetscape landscaping, and are wholesome and in harmony with adjacent uses ". 1. The design includes consideration of features that reflect characteristics of Tukwila's history (1.2.4). 2. The development provides adequate parking and lighting (1.7.3). Parking lot light fixtures are shown around the site in all the new parking areas and in the existing parking area in the northwest corner adjacent to Ethan Allen. The applicant meets the minimum parking standard and has a reciprocal parking agreement with the adjacent property owner to the west and south. 3. In a reas of c oncentrated c ommercial a nd r etail a cavity, t he d evelopment is connected by pedestrian facilities to the City's trail network, where feasible (1.11.4). 11 Staff Report to the Board of Architectural Review L04 -036 Supplemental Edition 17401 Southcenter Parkway The applicant proposes connecting the site to the public sidewalk system at both the north and south points along their frontage along Southcenter Parkway. b. Tukwila Urban Center (TUC) Goal 10.2 "Encourage and allow a central focus for the Tukwila Urban Center, with natural and built environments that are attractive, functional, and distinctive, and supports a range of mixed uses promoting business, shopping, recreation, entertainment, and mixed use residential opportunities:" 1. Wherever possible, the development provides an interior vehicular connection between adjacent parking areas (10.2.4). Internal circulation along the front of the site between the adjacent parking areas is not accomplished but otherwise utilizes the existing common access easements and driveways. 2. The development should be designed with an appropriate scale and proportion; pedestrian- oriented features and streetfront activity areas, such as ground floor windows, modulated facades, rich details in materials and signage; quality landscaping; an appropriate relationship to adjacent sites; an overall building quality; and with sensitivity to important features such as Green River and Tukwila Pond (10.2.7). The proposal provides six and seven feet of sidewalk along the building entrances. Windows and doors blend into one another creating a glass wall. No details are proposed for these building elements. Modulation of the front facade consists of the "columns" that are appended to the building wall providing approximately 1 foot of "relief." One five foot offset in the building's 250 feet of length is provided. The one foot columns are added to the south and west side. This treatment is not consistently used because the building on the north and westnorth sides is at the setback line and the one foot of treatment would require setting the building back one foot in those locations. In these locations the applicant has setback the upper portion of the north and west building walls in order to provide column relief. 3. The development should provide an adequate supply of parking, efficient and effective parking lot design, and not preclude less auto dependent use of the site in the future. (10.2.6) Awkward parking lot curbing and landscaping remain in several locations. A landscape area adjacent to the north 20 of the site's required parking stalls will remain in poor condition. Landscaping adjacent to the south property line could also deteriorate through customer traffic. 12 Staff Report to the Board of Architectural Review L04 -036 Supplemental Edition 17401 Southcenter Parkway 4. The development should achieve a high - quality design; contribute to the creation of hospitable pedestrian environments through site design techniques, such as integration of architectural /site design/landscape elements and co- existence of auto /transit /pedestrian traffic; should be designed to maximize pedestrian safety and convenience; and should incorporate physical and natural elements that enhance the area's overall aesthetic, including street orientation (10.2.3). Six and seven feet of pedestrian walkway are shown adjacent to the majority of the building entrances. Existing pedestrian facilities are incorporated into proposed site circulation. The applicant is providing multiple pedestrian pathways to the public street and sidewalk however, the placement of the building leaves the public streetfront removed from the commercial storefronts. CONCLUSIONS The Board of Architectural Review, pursuant to Tukwila Municipal Code (TMC) Section 18.108.040, and upon finding of the facts above, hereby makes the following conclusions under the city's Design Review Criteria (TMC 18.60.050) and Determination of Consistency with Adopted Plans and Regulations for type 4 approvals (TMC 18.100.030.) The applicant has made modifications to the overall site plan that creates better transitions between the proposed development and the surrounding improvements. However, until the applicant is able to work with the adjacent property owner, there will be unsafe and substandard conditions associated with this redevelopment in whatever shape it takes. 1. Relationship of Structure to Site. Adequate landscaping, and with four feet of unobstructed walkways, adequate pedestrian movement can be provided on the site. Parking is divided among three separate areas helping to break up potentially large paved areas. The loading area is appropriately relocated to the northwest corner and screened. The trash and recycling area is also appropriately screened subject to a high quality gate system. The height and scale of the building is compatible with the surrounding developments. 2. Relationship Structure and Site to Adjoining Area. The existing off -site pedestrian facilities are recognized and continue on the site in continuous patterns. The actual number of stairs and length of ramp from the sidewalk along Southcenter PY to the front of the building will change because of the regrading that is required to meet parking lot minimum grades. The path from the public sidewalk through the front parking lot jogs through the handicap stalls. A more logical path would be directly between the building's 13 Staff Report to the Board of Architectural Review L04 -036 Supplemental Edition 17401 Southcenter Parkway sidewalk and the public sidewalk. The advantage would also be that the southernmost stall, which currently appears unusable because of the lack of reverse maneuverability, would have more room in which to reverse. Retail tenants want parking in front of their doors and maximum visibility to motorists. Within that context, there must be adequate amenity through high quality landscaping; safe, comfortable pedestrian transition areas; and connections to the other retailers in the area. The revised plan recognizes and is more sensitive to the adjacent development. The proposed design creates a front that faces the Park Place Shopping Center, with whom it shares access and parking. In addition the rear of the building, which faces a neighboring business, parking area and common driveway now has some amenity for pedestrian, motorists as well as building facade treatment. The applicant has stated that he may not improve the condition of the lighting, landscaping or traffic stop sign in the common easement area because he lacks authority to maintain or improve them. The inability to resolve and work out issues with the adjacent property owner with whom they share common driveways and access creates substandard, potentially hazardous conditions. For example, curbing for parking to the south will exist without any relation to the new development and potentially be a safety hazard. Required parking will be adjacent to substandard, dying plants. The plantings will remain in poor condition and likely be damaged by the tenant's customers. In addition, the subject site shares common driveways with the site to the west and south but is not able to connect the parking areas in front. The addition of landscaping along the north and west building walls will help define the edge of the adjacent driveway easements as well as provide some additional relief to these relatively flat building planes. Parking that sits adjacent to each other and that has rights to common access will not be internally accessible. The result is an awkward parking area transition, where two parking areas dead end adjacent to each other but don't connect. 3. Landscaping and Site Treatment. The current grade of the site above Southcenter PY will be lowered in order to allow the applicant to provide a more level parking area in front of the building. The natural focal point provided by the street and the site will be used to highlight a proposed pole sign. When certain elements of design are used, like canopies, they should be functional as well as aesthetic. The canopy depth can vary but should be deep where they function for people and shallow where they sit over planting areas. A tree other than a Bowhall Maple, with a more open canopy, would be more appropriate for a retail district where businesses prefer visibility. In addition the Koster Blue Spruce located in the northeast corner will create visibility problems for the freestanding sign proposed for the site. Whereas the Raywood Ash is a high quality tree, the designated street tree for Southcenter PY is 14 Staff Report to the Board of Architectural Review Supplemental Edition L04 -036 17401 Southcenter Parkway the Red Oak (Quercus Rubra.) Otherwise a good use of canopy trees has been provided for the main portion of the site. Additional ground cover around the shrubs will be needed to provide sufficient coverage. Customers walking to the businesses in the proposed building will damage plantings that exist along the north and south. These plantings are on the adjacent property. A working relationship with the adjacent property owner would allow some accommodation of the landscaping so that the improvements can be modified so that they are not damaged. 4. Building Design. The materials proposed for the building will be of sufficient quality to be durable and functional. The scale of the structure is in harmony with surrounding structures. The proposed colors are harmonious with the bright colors used as accent. Mechanical equipment will be screened by the rooftop behind the building's parapet. The drainage system for the building will be internally incorporated except for scuppers, which allow overflow along the west elevation of the building. Although not currently show, the scuppers should be relatively unobtrusive. A tubular light fixture is proposed for placement along the columns, which will illuminate that design feature at night. 5. Miscellaneous Structures and Street Furniture. The building elevations show a conceptual location for future wall signs. The freestanding (pole) sign complements in color and with a pediment the building's design and will be sized to meet the Sign Code. The benches, trash cans, raised planters, bike rack, railings at stairs and wall tops should either pick up a color from the building's color palette or be a neutral shade such as black. 6. Comprehensive Plan Policies. Overall parking supply is adequate, meeting the City's parking requirements and according to Transpo, transportation consultants for the applicant, traffic generated by the new retail tenants will be less than that produced by Winners. Modifications to the site and some of the improvements are necessary in order for the proposal to be in harmony with neighboring uses and to maximize pedestrian safety and convenience. Interior vehicular circulation should be provided if at all possible. RECOMMENDATION The Board of Architectural Review approve the project subject to the following conditions: 15 Staff Report to the Board of Architectural Review L04 -036 Supplemental Edition 17401 Southcenter Parkway Four feet of unobstructed pedestrian walkway along building frontage. Swapping the southernmost handicap stall with the pedestrian connection to the street thereby creating an area to reverse and maneuver out of the last stall and creating a more straightforward connection for pedestrians. A landscape area in the rear where trellises are shown on the west building elevation; Canopy depth of five feet along east side and south sides. Ground and building mounted utilities located and screened to minimize their appearance in the landscape. An elevation of the raised planting islands in the plaza and of a dumpster gate of solid metal. Submittal of a landscape plan that incorporates: • the changes made to the site plan; • the plaza improvements; • the Northern Red Oak along Southcenter Parkway; and • plantings in the rear that complement the plants along the front of the Jo -Ann tenant space. Selection of complementary colors for the site's furnishings. The applicant should be encouraged to work with adjacent property owner to obtain permission from adjacent property owner to: • Improve the plantings adjacent to the parking area on the north side; • Improve plantings adjacent to the south of the building modifying the landscape area such that the areas that are likely to be impacted by pedestrian paths are adequately treated; • Parking lot surface water is adequately addressed; • ' Connect the two parking areas along the eastern front; and • Provide a pedestrian connection between the entrance to Jo -Ann and the southern plaza. 16 6 2 NEW POLE UCHT .4 UCHT A .1 • (2 N ri MATCH LANDSCAPE ACROSS ESMT. OR 700000L 6 } -t • 774',13' . EX! S . UGH 78' 1- RECO\-- _ O F•F'E 2g } n �1 '.. " CS•112s1 7 182.0 19 n; 1 ¢ a —616 �l � PYLON 51GN G y - 1; T_... -4� <515 0 w e Ir MATCH ADJACENT CENTER U (-) -T 1".t - o U — 0 0 UNE OF CAN0PY �_- 3 U L,) ABOVE — 136. a 11 (T RA nikrsu • ADD Y_ J BUFF TONE CONCRETE i. WAU( 6071 TOOLED J JOINTS "s1 NEW.PD� y. \\\\V". sl .%5561 /3886• E` 66.85' XIS JOANN FABRIC EXISTING 20 I?ARKING STALLS` 5 86'40'03 W' ! EXIST PEAKS TOP 7 EXIST. PKG. — NOT A PART OF PROPERTY BUT USEABLE BORDERS BOOKSTORE rs ti NEW POLE UCHT 5 88'51'25 E f , .. - 1)1 MATCH LANDSCAPE ACROSS ESMT. OR. ADL. 908 UV • 31.1 BOLLARD LIGHT (rm.) 5.000. SITE CROSS- SECTION 272.38' COMMON ACCESS DRIVE ESMT. ; 4 •r•. LS•39061 1 EXIST. PKC. — N0T A PART OF PROPERTY BUT USEABLE 10•386 1a.. SOuNCINTS MX.. EE LL AACHWPATHWAY UGNT, TYP. 5 ig1R5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1'. 1 , 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 VICINITY MAP SC -3 RETAIL BUILDING SITE AREA: 47,694sf BLDG. AREA: 18,677sf ON SITE PARKING: 76 CARS LANDSCAPE AREA: 5,232sf ± S I T E P L A N PYLON SIGN 1 LANDSCAPE CALCULATIONS: 1 PARKING LS REQUIRED IN FRONT /SIDE 1 PARKING LS SHOWN = 1,365sf (NOT INCLUDING 1 PARKING LS REQUIRED IN REAR = 17 1 PARKING LS :SHOWN = `696s.f. 1 1 1 Attachment A 20 ' 10' tl 1 = 2C-0" 17401 SOUTHCENTER PARKWAY NOTES:. 1. PYLON SIGN NOT TO EXCEED 75sf PER SIDE. 2. HEIGHT OF PYLON SIGN NOT TO EXCEED 30' A.F.G. 3. SITE LIGHTING 9 BOLLARD LIGHTS © 100W EACH = 900W 7 POLE MOUNTED SHOE BOX LIGHTS © 400W EACH = 2,800W TOTAL WATTS = 4,100W 4. MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE WATTS © 0.20W /SF = 5,476W = 59 STALLS x 15s.f. = 885s.f. 15' FRONT YD. LANDSCAPING) STALLS x 10s.f. = 170s.f. RECEIVED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 's 11 J CL 161 1— 0 sheet < < U u R < A1.0 c c E C•1 3 0 , , I, 1 85*-11 723'-aj" 7 4' -8; CANOPIES ABOVE PROJEC11NG 18' 69*-11;* LL.1 . 21 71'-2j* FICY-10" FLOOR PLAN T- 0 T. 0 e CANOKS ABOLE PROJECTING 48 . 01 * 0 C-11 7 7 s'- 1i*fti- tr , 16' 8 0' 8 16' 1 • I 6-0" EAST • IV 8' 0' 8' 16' di111111111111111h IU • SIGNAGE I l Numunnodummumnimin,_ imummiumemumMg ismimumm 11•11•1=01111111111PMIIIEB: 16 8' NORTH ELEVATION 16 8' a' a' 16' 86-11 SOUTH ELEVATION' 16' 8' —----- 81111111118 & OURPSTER ENCLOsuRE I PANT BODY COLOR 0' 8' 16' 0' 8' 16' ELEVATION • 16- STANDING SEM METAL ROOF (W) CONCRETE PANELS W/ REVEALS. NAT WEST ELEVATION METAL CANOPY 8/ 11E ROOS. PANT CLEM INSULATED GLASS IN ANODIZES ALUHINUM FRAMES CERAMIC 71LE PATTERN 1 • 116-0" PRECAST PARAPET 110., PER I /A2 0 STANDING SEAR YETAL 80061611 O PARAPET DETAIL SCALE: 1" = TYPICAL REVEAL SCALE: 1" = 1'-0" LOCATED AT /ROW'S PEAFS Too r ::::••■••■••■:::: 66 08606 — .L– ■ --------- DOOR TO BE PAINTED- BODY COLOR OW ) ' 1' • 1V-0" vou scoNcE LIGHT 61606611 - ttP. 0 z 0 1— z 0 CL 0 LJ- 5: gf c 0 c LLJ 0 0 CC (0 748 2 0 cc sheet A2.0 National Sign Nib 1255 Westlake Avenue North Seattle. WA Phone: 206 282 0700 Fax: 206 285 309! This Ir An Ontrna! UopnLlrrbrd Dr•rvrwt. Crr.rred as .V.N.n.! Sign C•rt•arr•• Ir lr S..L.wnr.d P•• Yon. P.rundl V. lw Conner -now W.rh A Prow, Berns Pldnwed F. Yon 3, .V.n•n.! Sip C•./orwrr•w. Ir !r Not T. Se Shown To Anyone Onr.rdr Yon. Org.rwrurr••. O. To Br U..d. Re/..dw.rd. Copied Or f.hdrr.d In Any Fo,b,.n Anr V.ate Bernd Thar G,,.r,4 T. Burr Herr". Shall R...... Th. Sr.drare P.,aren. Of el Der/tn Awd Ewt..e.n•g Fre T. Vu.•eal St go ---- - - - - -- Painted Faux Ties. Paint To Match Blue Of Building Architecrarc. Satin Finish. Robert Scofield C1,..r Southrenter Pkuj TukuriLe. WA /.b..re. Brad McKay Derain, End Way Sb..t N.. .f jay Starr R ECEIVED . P.. r.. Doug. 1".SEP 0 200k COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT OUTDOOR CEILING CYLINDER 8438-15 White Finish Aluminum Size: VVidth: 4 1/2" Height: 7" Wattage One (M) 65w (BR-30) • UL Listed for Damp Location. OUTDOOR CEILING CYLINDER 8439 White Finish Aluminum Size: Width: 6" Height 9" Wattage: One (M) 120w (BR • UL Listed for Damp Location. CYLINDER DIFFUSER 9008 Black Finish Weather Resistant Diffuser • For Outdoor Use With Item # 8340. CYLINDER DIFFUSER 9009 Black Finish Weather Resistant Diffuser • For Outdoor Use With Item # 8341. CYLINDER DIFFUSER 9002-12 Black Finish Aluminum Step Baffle • For 8438 and 8338. CYLINDER DIFFUSER 9003 Black Finish , .. Aluminum Step Baffle • For 8439 and 8339. (hi) Medium Base - - ALL:7.1, - : fattlittfbi,,r, • CA q-_P 0 1 2004 seaulllluon. iii/chnttoftT www SeaGullUghting.com 3: hr�.• /hTnmN, hlilin}+tinr7 r-n n rn rrac /(arnvctarl in 41/ath tD Page 1 of 1 RECEIVED SEP 3 0 20O4 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 9/29/2004 ct 1 Page 1 of 1 ( http://theparkcatalog.corn/assets/145-1004big.iDq 9/23/2004 • • a • • • 4 s Page 1 of 1 Mth,#- httD: '/thet,arkcata1ocomIassetsfl 36-2 8O3bi.ii, /70f14 PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING OCTOBER 14.2004 REGARDING THE BRAD DECKER MATTER CASE #L04 -036 COMMISSIONERS FOR TUKWILA CHAIRMAN MALINA COMMISSIONER EKBERG COMMISSIONER MERYHEW COMMISSIONER PETERSON COMMISSIONER MARVIN COMMISSIONER ARTHUR TRANSCRIBER CHARLOTTE CORBLEY TAPE FOR OCTOBER 14, 2004 Malina: At this time we have a swearing in ceremony as far this continuation on this BAR deliberation. All of you that are going to testify this evening, would you raise your hand and repeat after me, the testimony you're about to give is the truth. Please indicate by... Woman: I swear... UNINTELLIGIBLE Malina: With that we will open file L04 -36, the Brad Decker project and we'll hear from staff. Bradshaw: For the record I'm Moira Bradshaw with the Department of Community Development. And I think what I, might work best is uh, go through the site plan and the elevations and point out the changes that have occurred since the last staff report that was written in August. And I have the site plans up on the wall behind you as well as the elevations. And what I'll do is I'll come up because my eyes aren't that good. BRADSHAW HAS WALKED AWAY FROM HER MICROPHONE Bradshaw: So first the site plan over to the right is the original proposal, that the staff report from August was based on. This is the new site plan. And uh, this one is highlighted just to orient you a little bit better. The purple, the purple outline is the actual property line. And what the applicant has done is add landscaping areas here at the corners and the rear of the building. The recycling and dumpster have been relocated to this location here in the north, the northwest corner. And the edge of the building here that used to follow that uh, southerly property line has been brought in so that it is angled perpendicular to the, the Southcenter Parkway and back towards the entrance to Joann's. As we noted, the last meeting on this, the entrance to this to Joann's is actually right about in here. And this is just (unintelligible) off to the side. Um, they 'reduced the number, overall this is the additional landscaping here at the corners, the sides and the rear has reduced the number of parking stalls. The uh, the reduction in the building square footage has um, uh, is uh, equal or, or anyway the parking is still complying for the, for the building size. And um, this landscaping we think acts as a better, provides 1 better transition to the common driveway. Here in the corner that you make anchors the building in the back and rear. And uh, provides better demarcations for the edge of the circulation driveway. Uh, those, and then in terms of what they've done with the space by bringing the building wall back, they made a pedestrian plaza here. The edge of the property line butts up against a landscape island here that is adjacent to perpendicular stalls. So they bring the paving down to the edge of the property line. They've added two raised planter beds that the benches that have been shown in an attachment will fit up against. They've got one here and here. They've added two uh, canopy trees here and tree grades outside an entrance to the south part of the building. If you actually then look at the elevation there have been some I think other significant modifications as well. On the, this is the uh, proposal as it exists now. This is the proposal that we had in August. Uh, and what I'll do is I'll just sort of focus on what's been added here that didn't exist in the previous uh, analysis since the August staff report. They've added a tower roof line here or a tower element that caps this edge, corner of the building. And uh, they emphasize the vertical columnar elements by adding cornice treatment here around the edges. And so these will set out about a foot and then a lot of the other things occur in the rear elevation or the west elevation, the back here. They've added an opaque glass, which we have a sample of here. I'll go ahead and pass that around. And um, that, this is the corner opposite the entrance to Joann's. The trellises existed before and continue along the back to sort of mimic the molding that will, that occurs in the (unintelligible) around all side of the building. And then over on this side is not glass or trellis, but uh, stamping in the concrete or some sort of technique to create sort of a grid pattern that matches the molding that will be in the, in the windows around all, all of the site. And um, the back has also received parapet treatment, and, on both sides to sort anchor and again play up and provide more interest and definition along those rear side. The rear side we do think is important, because of the uh, big role this rear circulation isle plays for the overall center as well as a significant amount of parking that exists for the project along the back. Uh, there is some, along the north side and along this rear side here, they butt up against the 10 2 foot setbacks that are required in this zone. And so instead of having a one foot um, uh, one foot of relief for the columns, those will be flush to the edge of the building both on this side as well as the north side here. What they have done to compensate is to set back the upper parapet part that provides some relief for the upper part of the building and you see a shadow line here for instance for the column at the top as well as the cornice treatment. Let's see, those, I think they've also added some um, canopy treatments, for instance on this side, on the rear side, on the back. This is the loading zone. They've raised the canopy's height to provide the clearance that's needed for um, uh, for that loading zone. The applicant has also modified the tile treatment along the base of the columns and their original proposal was to use the, sort of the tan tile and they've modified it to this blue in the upper corner that would match the trim that would be used around the roof line parapet. And then this is an example of the actual mullion that will be used in the glass around the building. So uh, the, the windows here will really shade and really won't have a dark, or you really won't see much of a pattern, except perhaps for the contrast between glass and white. Um, let's see, so based upon these changes, staff felt that uh, they could recommend approval with some, with a few conditions. Staff and applicant were not able to agree on the width of the walkway along the front of the building. They're currently proposing seven feet and six feet where it butts out here, adjacent to this, the L, the narrow part of the lot, shallow part of the lot. And um, the seven feet here also must accommodate two feet of overhang for cars, and three feet of door opening, which would leave two feet in some sections for walkway. And um, the urban design firm that we had look at this proposal, as well as just in looking at walkways around much of the new retail that we've got located along Southcenter Parkway has deeper sidewalks. And so uh, the recommendation was that it go to eight or ten feet. What we've done in the staff recommend that the applicant provide 48 inches somehow, uh, in those areas where it is not currently provided on that site. Uh, the other comment that staff has or remains about this overall proposal is that we've had a handicapped stall down here in the corner and the angle, it goes out at a right angle to Southcenter Parkway, where the property line sort comes back at um, an angle cutting into the 3 reverse, the reverse area for getting out of the stall and so staff felt that they could swap the walkway that's shown going out to Southcenter Parkway and put it adjacent to the property line here, providing some additional area to uh, for the people using that stall to back in or back out of that area. And that would require some additional unloading and loading for the other stall that's located there. But we think that there's enough area or width to um, to provide the two handicapped stalls as well as um, the walk, provide two walkways in essence. One to just one of the stalls and one going out to the street. The elevation that we have um, for uh, you can see that there are elevations or that there are trellises located along, three trellises basically along the rear here and uh, there was just a minor comment that the site planning needed to show significant planting depth to provide for one of the trellises in the rear. And the canopy depth varies along the, around the sides of the building. In the front you've got five feet along the long dimension on the east side and then three feet along the shorter dimension on the east side. And then 18 inches on the north and the south side. And um, there's actually an entry way on the south side and so staff felt that could be deeper. Even though it may not be symmetrical with either side, the east and the west or the left and the right as you see it from Southcenter Parkway. We felt that more than likely the building - itself, or most the time is going to be seen at an angle and that the function should be, take precedence over that potential asymmetrical, asymmetry going on in canopy depth. And then um, minor conditions that we typically would see at the time of the building permit would be a condition that any ground mounted electrical boxes or building mounted electrical boxes be appropriately screened, uh, and located. And that we see an elevation of the raised planters, the two planters that are proposed in the plaza area here. And um, and that we look at the colors. In the staff or in the package that you've received there are attachments for some of the furniture that is being proposed around the site. There is a trash receptacle that would be out front for uh, the customers (unintelligible) the site. And then some around the south side there. And uh, we're just suggesting that they be complimentary to this, the building, as opposed to being complimentary to the parkway center to the south end there which has a number of plaza areas. And um, I 4 know there is quite a bit of concern and of course some conclusions about what's occurring off site. Uh, for instance in the staff report we talk about the, the landscape bed here that's adjacent to this project's dedicated parking. This landscaping actually belongs to this property owner here and is currently in a um, substandard condition. Some of the plants are dead. There, you don't have 90% coverage. And the customers who will be using this will have, will likely make paths that will go directly towards the building here. And the same is true on the south side. Again the landscaping is off site, adjacent to the property and people who park there will likely proceed through the landscaping to the project site. So um, the other issues that was an off site concern uh, was the lack of connection here and basic division here that will occur with the, uh, a curb and then the adjacent property owner's grass, I believe is what is there now and a curb as well. So it will be slightly awkward for motorists to actually, potentially get into here, not find a stall and then have to go back out and go back around to get (unintelligible) in this area over here. And then um, the concern that staff has expressed for this area here. Um, if you look at your plans that you have in front of you, you might be able to see it a little bit better. What's happening here is this currently exists as uh, angled parking right along in here. And so there's a curb that goes off at an angle from this rear property line. And so you'll have a six inch curb here, with a landscape bed, and, and then you'll have asphalt that will remain and then the applicant will be coming in and putting in a curb, demarcating their plaza, pedestrian area. So staff expressed concern about um, people proceeding through here, walking through here, which is uh, will be a natural path for uh, shoppers and /or tenants of the site, customers and the uh, awkwardness here, the potential tripping hazard that proposes. We do think that there are some options for resolving that that aren't necessarily explored here, such as depressing and grading this slightly. You've only got a six inch curb here. If you brought this down to grade, the grade of the asphalt, then it wouldn't be curb, depression curb. And uh, it would be flush and I think that there would be a more natural, more natural for people to step up and through the landscape bed. Then you've got, you'll have the same situation that, that's occurring here, where you'll have 5 Malina: pedestrians crossing over and through landscape beds to get to their vehicles to go (unintelligible). What we have mentioned in the staff report is encouraging the property owner to work with the, or the applicant to work with the adjacent property owner to make those improvements and um, we feel that uh, this one area in here is such that uh, it would be appropriate for us to condition any approval such that any modification that's done here, such as depressing the whole pedestrian plaza down so that it was flush with this circulation isle, and have that approved by the City's risk manager who could ameliorate the concerns for safety that have been addressed in the staff report. So I think that summarizes the conditions that we've talked about here. We've got the minimum pedestrian walkway in the front. The handicap stall in the front. The providing sufficient maneuverability for exiting the stall. The landscape area on the site plan in the rear so that it mirrors the trellis location on the elevation. The canopy depth along the south side, the south elevation of the building. Working with the location (unintelligible) of the ground mounted (unintelligible) on the utilities and providing staff with an elevation of the planting beds that will be in the plaza. The other thing is the dumpster (unintelligible). The doors actually will face north, but we'd like to see a nice quality metal material that compliments the building colors. And then uh, the landscape plan. Provide landscape plans to match the changes that have been shown here and also incorporate the changes that were suggested for Southcenter Parkway. And then appropriate (unintelligible) for the site furnishings that are being proposed, the bench, the dumpster, the railing and uh, bike rack. So how can I answer questions? You know in your conclusion section, your opening statement here, "The applicant made modifications" blah, blah, blah, "However, until the applicant is able to work with the adjacent owner, it will be an unsafe and a substandard condition located within three feet of whatever shape it takes." How are we going to address, I mean I understand there's an agreement for the parking there. Why they can't work out this 90% coverage that we need uh, that island area that is going to cross over from this parking area. At this point in time with this particular statement and undoubtedly the City's risk manager sees the same situation, if this isn't 6 Arthur: Man: ..unsafe. Arthur: dealt with first in a written agreement, I don't see how this thing can fly. With us sitting here making this decision and yet everything is based upon uh, an unsafe and substandard position on that site. If there is no written agreement between the other party, uh, we're sort of wasting our time. Just for your own, well, I did contact, yeah this concerned me as well. I don't know, (unintelligible) around awhile and I don't think I have ever been asked to move forward on - something that has been noted as being substandard or unsafe. And so I do have concern for that and I guess that's what I'm hearing back, the risk manager for the City would take a, I'm still not sure exactly how that works. So we recommend as commissioners that this is, recognizing the fact that it's an unsafe and substandard condition we should go, we should all recommend to go ahead with it? Bradshaw: Well that the applicant be required to transition on their property. So that would be the solution is for them to transition to the adjacent property on their side, as opposed to making accommodations off site. Malina: And as far as the park, this parking, this sidewalk area here, I uh, I mean I realize that there's a building code that addresses sidewalk issues it states that you've got to have as much as 48 feet of clear sidewalk and in this particular case, we're seeing something wide here and then it narrows down to something probably a little over a foot possibly. Bradshaw: I think the narrowest portion is actually three feet in the rear or I guess (unintelligible). And, and the, the building code, and that's something that they'll have to meet. The idea for us here to establish a minimum uh, width that we're comfortable from, from our guidelines , in terms of the appropriate pedestrian width along the front of the building and in and out. Um, and staff had recommended 8 to 10 feet. And it seems that rather than recommending the minimum width with all the obstructions, that a um, a clear, a minimum width for the overall sidewalk, to just recommend a um, a minimum clear area that you would be comfortable with 7 Meryhew: Bradshaw: Meryhew: Bradshaw: Meryhew: Bradshaw: Meryhew: Bradshaw: Man: Arthur: Meryhew: Bradshaw: Arthur: Bradshaw: Arthur: Bradshaw: for navigating between the doors and the, and the car overhang. And that's where staff came up with 48 inches, four feet. Is there room there to put wheel stops in on the . parking and so, so they can't get upon the sidewalk? Uh, they would have to um, push the sidewalk back. I mean so they, so they'd narrow the sidewalk to put the wheel stops in? Oh, so there's a problem there in the parking area right there. Right. The parking area is already at a minimum. Right. Well I'm, then how do they get the eight feet? Do they have to move the building to the east or to the west by one foot then to go from seven feet to eight feet? Yes. Or shrink it. I'm not sure I even see any measurements here on the, what would it be, the south side of the building. Yeah. Well the south side of the building has a fairly deep, that's at least 10 feet because it's a 10 foot set back from that south, the southwest corner. So the narrowest depth is 10 feet. Okay. At the south... At the southwest. Arthur: Okay. Bradshaw: And then it deepens as you go east. Okay. So we're really skinnying up the depth (unintelligible) on the rear if I'm reading this right. The depth in the rear is three feet, plus the two foot overhang. So it's about five feet in 8 Arthur: Okay. Bradshaw: (unintelligible) point. But that's just north of where that pedestrian pathway comes across. Peterson: (Unintelligible). Is that to accommodate wheelchairs? I mean is there something that's (unintelligible)? the rear. Bradshaw: No. - Peterson: No space? Bradshaw: No. I mean they'll, they'll, they're familiar with the state building code and will comply with that. It's uh, it's a design guideline recommendation as to what you would (unintelligible) and appropriate frontage to the building and entry way to the building and uh, pedestrian path along the front of the building, taking into account that you've got four or five doors that are opening as well as cars that overhanging in the front. Ekberg: We're assuming that the doors will swing out? Man: Yes. Three feet. Ekberg: Right. Right. And that diminishes the walk, the ability to walk between the car and the open door. Has there been any consideration about a door that slides left to right versus opening out? Bradshaw: No we haven't considered that. Man: (Unintelligible). Ekberg: Does staff know you're going to do that? Man: No we hadn't had a chance to talk to her about it. Ekberg: Okay. Thank you. That would solve that problem. Meryhew: Maybe we ought to hear the applicant and then come back to staff at this point. (Unintelligible). Malina: At this time we'll hear from the staff or from the applicant. (Unintelligible). Decker: Malina: (Unintelligible). Thank you for moving it up a week to help us with our times since we have been working on this for a long time. And thank you for Moira for putting up with the project. I think we have much better project now because of her input. Um, a couple issues. We have been working since January. We purchased the property in December and ING also purchased their property in December. We met with Steve Latimer in the beginning of January, first week I think, to discuss these issues. These were our concerns. And he was unwillin• to work with us. We have since, or the las 0 mont s •een working with them to try to resolve this. We have offered to pay to put in new landscaping. We have offered to pay to connect the driveway and the response is because Joann's opposes the pro'ec •- save a responsibility to oppose the project also and 1 ac ua y participate and us, they would be um, their fiduciary responsibility could be, I forget the word, but they'd have a problem. So they have been unwilling to with us. And we're concerned too. We would like to resolve these issues. Um, I mean I hate to do it, but, you know, safety is a concern, we can put up a fence to block that off. I mean it's a terrible thing that people can't work together, but um, if that's concern on that parking lot, uh, we'd be willing to pay and put up a fence to make sure the public is safe and that is our concern too. We'd be willing to pay to connect the driveways. We'd be willing to pay to put the crosswalks, to improve it. But they are unwilling to allow us to do an thing on their property or work with us in any form or • , w is un i we s ow, as ey pu i , that ey don't, we don't need them, they won't work with us. But once we show that we do not need them, they have told us that they would be willing to work with us. So if you don't work with us, you know, if you don't approve it because of those issues, uh, to have a shopping center like that you have to work together as an owner. Once (unintelligible) they're not going to want to have a stop there. It doesn't work well for them either. They're not going to want a fence there. Um, Steve has told me that he would be willing to work with us, but until we can show that we don't need them. Well at this point at this, at this point in time, as far as I'm concerned, um, I have a problem as far as seeing something like this goes through when I see somebody within the City 10 Decker: Sure. I'd-be willing to address the issues and make it so that it is not a safety issue. I would agree and that's why I mentioned that we'd be willing to put up a three fence along our property line there to remove that risk of somebody falling or twisting their ankle on the transition, until it gets put in. And also Moira and I had talked about, Moira had brought it up as a concern going to Joann's if people were walking, and we can simply, `cause we're raising, as you go from east to west, we're coming up. So we can simply adjust to the grade and meet the grade, so there's, there's no transition there. It will be just be flush to remove the trip hazards. That's, that's an interest that we have also to make sure it's a safe project. And I think those are the only two issues, you know, walking over the landscaping, we'd be willing to put some stones and steps, but um, again we have to get their permission. Malina: Well I guess the problem that I have is that you've got an agreement for parking. Why is it so hard to get an agreement to enhance the landscaping and bring it up to uh, a 90% coverage and it benefits everybody in the (unintelligible) of... Decker: I'd agree. There is no, there's no reason. Man: (Unintelligible). Decker: Yeah and he's the manager for the owner. And he's here. You can ask him. Man: (Unintelligible). Malina: Well first of all we want to hear from the applicant as far as addressing the concerns staff has the recommendations staff has made. Decker: Sure. Man: And I guess one of the issues again was the doors swinging out three feet into the walkway... Decker: Yes. here, in risk management and, you know, I have to be concerned about those customers who come to Southcenter. I live here in this city and I have a concern for that. So I... 11 Malina: Decker: Okay. Somewhere we need to, staff has recommended a eight or a ten foot, but I mean we need to hear from you. You've heard her recommendations. We need to hear from you... Malina: ...whether you would support that or you're opposed to. If you're opposed to it, we'd like to know why. Decker: Okay. Building code is only 36 inches. ADA for emergency exits is 44 inches. So there is no building code or any code that says it has to be 48 inches unless I'm missing something. So we talked to the architect and I tried to call Bob who is the ordinance and structural person here, but I couldn't get a hold of him. But it's my understanding 44 inches is ADA for emergency exits only. And obstructions, a door is not classified as an obstruction. A door is mostly closed and these are small centers with um, you know, there are not a lot of people coming and going. They're glass. They can see somebody coming. They don't, you know, slam open and shut. So, you know, to address her concerns, we had talked about several different options. We could inset the door two feet. We could have sliding doors. There are other ways we could, address it, but um, the way they're phrased is confusing for me and I was trying to figure, I had to call her and ask her, are you classifying a door as an obstruction, because it's not classified in the building code as an obstruction. And I understand that that's what we're getting. So now she's, it's, I think it's a nine foot sidewalk when last month it was a eight foot sidewalk. And also last month you approved our project, our other project which has seven foot sidewalks. So we have requested for seven feet. Um, Mr. Scofield has developed another shopping center, a couple of them up north, and has had them for 20 years now and hasn't had any issues with seven foot sidewalks, which includes the two foot overhang. So that, um, that's our feedback on that portion. The other one, the swapping of the... Man: (unintelligible). Decker: Right. We... Man: (Unintelligible). Decker: We do have a concern on the back, because on the 12 back, there's very little traffic there. There's no, there's not doors there, but in order to create the look, uh, as you come out of Joann's we put the column there and that sticks out one foot, so that one area has three foot. So it, and how she has it front, how she has it written if for the building frontage. So I want to just confirm that it's not for the back. Because in that one foot by five foot area, it's 36 inches, not 48 inches. Then on swapping the southern most handicapped stalls, um, we talked about that. That's kind of a weird, that last one there is kind of weird. What we talked about doing is rotating it so it's parallel with the property lines and so it's a straight backup. And that removes the concern and the issue of having, you know, running back into the, that line of actually a fence if we build a fence. If we simply just rotate it clockwise to be parallel then it's a straight 25 foot or 24 foot backup and there's no issue. So that was our suggestion when, when we got this. I just got it on Friday. So I had talked to Moira about that suggestion. Uh, the other concern is if you do move it down, what it does is then we don't become legal as far as a handicapped because on a handicapped stall you're supposed to have a five foot area that you get out on. So if we push it down then we loose a handicapped 'stall and so now we only have three and we're not legal. So that was our concern. On the landscaping trellis we're okay. I think um, let's see the canopies, the canopy depth, the five feet on the east, south, the concern there is that the canopies are.considered, we want to meet code. So what this does is in a couple places um, a canopy is considered a structure and not allowed in the rear yard, side yard or front yard. So we proposed 18 inches because that is allowed. If we do five feet it's requiring us to do something that's allowed to do per code. We can step it for the portions where it's uh, as our building now moves away from the property line on the south side. So we can step it and provide five feet there and we are fine with that. But we just don't have to do something that code doesn't allow us to do. And on the landscaping depth, the landscaping, the rear, the trellises were there for visual. And there is one trellis that we don't have um, landscaping under there and the whole purpose of the trellis is to provide visual interest on the back wall that's kind of covered up. So we hadn't planned to try to put landscaping under all of them. And we don't have a bed near there 13 Malina: Peterson: Decker: Peterson: Decker: Peterson: Decker: Peterson: Decker: Decker: so that poses a challenge for us to find a place to put a bed that's, you know, we could do one four inches, five inches, six inches, but we're concerned, I think it would work, but that's not a lot of bed depth for a lot of soil for the vines to grow. The other ones we're fine with. We can comply with them, but our main one was, the upper one was, you know, meeting code also. So I'd hate to have something approved that we can't meet code. Do you have any questions of the applicant at this time? (Unintelligible)that the glass came into use. In the back. What we were trying to do, when you came out of Joann's, have a very similar or the same look as we have if you're walking on Southcenter Parkway. And so to provide a glass front, that's what we will be using there, instead of clear glass because we don't have anything, you know, it would be the back storage room. So we talked about a lot of different things, but that seemed like the best solution. Okay. That my question whether coming out you'd look into (unintelligible) of Joann's. Yes. (Unintelligible). I don't recommend anything, but did you consider laying the building out so maybe that wouldn't be storage or maybe, could you have some display cases on the outside where it would look more like a storefront? We did. We talked about display cases and I think the answer was that they wouldn't get taken care of and that they wouldn't, it was not recommended by, by staff. So then we proposed this and... Did staff propose doing this? Uh, I think we did. We were responsible for 'coming back with that. But we did come back to them with the cabinet in the glass areas, you know, that they put in stores. Peterson: And this would be backlit so it would kind of look like a (unintelligible)? We haven't talked about that. 14 Malina: Man: (Unintelligible). Noonan: Anything else for the applicant at this point? Thank you. Uh, we do have a sign up sheet. Do you want to uh, we have Richard (unintelligible). And if you would state your name and your address please? And if you would state your address please. My name is Richard Noonan. I'm a district manager with Joann's Fabric and Crafts. It's obviously the business located behind the - proposed business here. Um, we just wanted to make uh, probably three or four simple points for you. Um, we have a few concerns. The first thing is the location and proximity of the, of the new building and that it creates to the gentleman's point a very back alley approach to the front of our business. So we have some concerns around that. The second piece is the congestion that could be caused by deliveries that will be to those new businesses in the proposed building. Um, while we have set up some areas for delivery, the FedEx and UPS person will be working that alleyway, for lack of a better term, to ac' those, to access those other buildings. The existing building there now, Winners deliveries, just for reference, are generally very early in the morning around beverages, food, things of that nature that get into the building early. We generally don't see much traffic from them after say 9:00 or 10:00 a.m. in the morning, about the time our business opens. We are very concerned that it creates a pedestrian hazard and traffic flow hazard through there, especially as you head into what we refer to as the (unintelligible) or Christmas time business which will be 50% of our business. The second issue we would bring to light is the inconsistency with Southcenter Parkway, how this building fits so tightly to the front of our building. If you take the opposite side of the, or I should say the south side of um, our building, you can see that the restaurant that's established there, there's a vast amount of parking between the two. That doesn't exist with what we are currently faced with. Last, as ;I understand it, the last meeting on September 16t the board requested to see a proposal shown of that sort of configuration. I don't know if that's been given to you at this point. Third, although there have been some esthetic changes to the back of the building that they have stepped up to try to make it esthetically more pleasing, the changes quite frankly have been 15 minimal. We appreciate them, but we're, we're looking to protect our assets and our guests from that, that type of atmosphere. You know at the end of the day we would just simply ask that you go back to the drawing board and that we keep the public hearing open until we can work out a lot of these issues. Lastly, you know, our guests and when you look at the fabric business and I won't belabor the issue, we've got a lot of fillers, and I'll be quite frank with you. My wife isn't an avid sewer, but her mother is at 65, 66 years old. It's sometimes difficult for them to move into our building. We don't want to increase that difficulty for them. And we look to protect them and to protect our interests as well. That's it. Man: (Unintelligible). Ekberg: I have a question for you. Noonan: Sure. Ekberg: You mentioned about going back to the drawing board until we can work things out. I'd like to understand how you think you can work things out based on the, what I've heard today about the inability to work things out. Noonan: Well, you know, I'm probably not the perfect person to ask where. I'm concerned that this alleyway effect and the fact that, while we're compliant with the number of parking places from, from a code perspective for lack of better term, many of our guests park in that front piece that is now going to taken away. I don't see an existing plan up there. But there is a whole other row of parking that goes there, that's shared between us and Winners, that our guests park in that has access to . the front of our store. We're now going to ask a lot of those guests to go around to the north end of the building and park back there, which quite frankly, our guests tell us they don't feel safe parking back there. So there's, there's some issues around there and, and I would just tell you that we get comments as it stands today on 'that being very snug and difficult to get to. That, that problem is going to be expanded. Ekberg: Thank you. Malina: Any other questions? Noonan: Thank you. 16 Thank you very much. Malina: The next person we have is Catherine Drews. Drews: (unintelligible). Can I defer to Mr. Wigman? Malina: Defer to who? Drews: Mr. Wigman. Malina: (Unintelligible). Let's jump in here... Wigman: (unintelligible). Malina: Your name and address please. Wigman: Chuck Wigman, 14900 Interurban Avenue South, Ste 210, Tukwila. Um, I was here before and you know, Brad got up and talked here recently about our non - cooperation and I thought I'd like of tell you what's going on. I mean we bought the property or ING bought the property the same time as they did. Um, you know, not thinking that they were going to have to deal with an issue immediately. So um, and frankly I, you know, it's not, it's not that we don't work with them. Um, and we do have contractual obligations with tenants, including Joann's and Borders that don't allow us to go and change the um, the layout of the center without getting their permission essentially. It's called a no- build zone.' So if we went in there and said "hey, we'll agree with this and we'll work with you ", that could be looked upon as this owner's um, breach of that clause in the lease. So what we've been doing is trying to work with both Joann's and Borders and getting them up to speed with what's going on, which Joann's has jumped right in and has been cooperative and, and we've been talking. Borders on the other hand has been very difficult to get a hold of. Um, multiple calls by us to them to try to at least have a discussion. We haven't even been able to have a discussion with their real estate person. So that aside, uh, we don't have a big problem with something happening on the site. I think what we have a problem with is what they're put on the site. The design board, the design review board was basically put together, I mean :you guys aren't code guys. You guys are looking at, you know, making things harmonious and so it's a nice place to live and the buildings match and what have you. Um, it, you know, our s.••estion is move the building up forward and move it ou owar•s ou c- - - CY - 0 - 8 - S — The way. Create a parking court"p'ar — be o properties. That I think is 17 good for pedestrians. It's good for shoppers. It looks better. Long term people are going to look at it as a positive addition. Um, you know, to maximize the site and build a building in front another building, you know, show me where else that happened anywhere in Tukwila, you know. And I know they had some issues about wanting to do maybe, they didn't like the corner spaces. Well this particular developer has built buildings like that and has been successful and leased them out. You know, look at Silver Platters. So, so anyways um, what I would ask is, we're going to continue to try to get Borders to work with us. We're not against working with these guys at all. Um, but we are against what's signe . I on't think it's harmonious with our property by any means. We don't think it's safe for the pedestrians um, in that center. We don't think it creates any synergies at all at this point and quite frankly don't think it should be approved as is. So um, so that's kind of our stance at this point. So if you guys have questions, let me know. Peterson: I have a question. (Unintelligible) up on the north where that landscaping seems to be. That's on your property? Wigman: It is... Peterson: Not the applicant? Wigman: It is on our property, but frankly to tell you the truth I didn't know that originally. But we just signed a contract with our landscaper to take care of that. And we also behind Ethan Allen too,..back there, so.... Malina: So your landscaper is going to end up bringing it up to... Wigman: We'll cut out all the dead plants and we'll bark it and trim it back and you know, do the normal stuff. Malina: How about the little capsulated parking area across the isle to get (unintelligible)...? Wigman: Where are you talking about? Malina: ...that portion back in here where the parking is at? Wigman: That's their, that's their parking, not our parking. 18 Malina: Oh, okay. Wigman: Which is kind of weird, `cause their parking is over in Ethan Allen's parking lot and we own the landscaping and we own the road they have to walk across. It's a weird site. Malina: Anything else (unintelligible). Man: (Unintelligible) on the south side of the building we have built a plaza... (unintelligible). Man: Why don't you shut him off there. Malina: You'll get your chance there.... Man: (Unintelligible). Wigman: I can, what question do you want answered. Man: I just want to know why you can't have some paths coming across from the parking, across your landscaping onto the sidewalk there? Arthur: I don't remember (unintelligible) Wigman: Alright. Show me where you're talking about and I don't think we have any... Man: On the (unintelligible) side of the building. Wigman: Right there? Man: Yes. Wigman: Why we can't have a path through the landscape like.... Man: (Unintelligible). Wigman: I'm not, I'd have to see that in more detail to know exactly what you're talking about, but I mean it doesn't seem like a big deal. Peterson: That's a slight variation on (unintelligible). On the south side are there currently Winners 'people that going to the Winners Restaurant parking on those one spots and then walking across that landscaping anyway to get to the restaurant? You already have traffic going across that landscaping don't you? Wigman: Well I think people walk across landscape. You know, some people do and some people don't, now. 19 Peterson: Wigman: Peterson: Wigman: Peterson: Wigman: Malina: Ekberg: Wigman: Ekberg: Wigman: I mean I do sometimes. My Mom probably does. Okay. I was just wondering... Yeah, I know. Probably not as much as when that plaza would go in, but it... Right. ...the landscaping might, for that southern portion, might already be in disrepair, because Winners people could be parking on that side and walking across it already. Right. Yeah. I mean that happens all the time. Yeah. I guess our deal is that it's just such a huge change from how it was originally designed. I mean if you go in there now, it's, it makes sense. If you build this it doesn't make sense to us. Typically you look across the street, you know, all the pad buildings are out there and, you know, like Sanford's and stuff like that. It's up there. It looks nice right on the road. The parking is shared between them and the rest of the center. And you know, that's good retail design. Anything else of... I just wondered, the applicant mentioned that they would seek approval in order to work with you. And, and that would give them, that would give you the impetus to work with them. So... We're not against working with them. We just can't commit to anything until we can get, you know, our contractual obligations either waived or agreed to a certain extent, that they, they tell us okay, yeah, we would consider something like that. So what I'm hearing is that if we were to approve it, you still may not be able to get Borders or other participants to come to the table with discussions with you as property :owners and have any influence whatsoever on this project, `cause you can't get your tenants to come together? Correct. I mean they're, they're, we think that, I mean, if we could just get a hold of them. And at this point you know, we're going to try to figure out somebody above and beyond 20 Ekberg: Wigman: Ekberg: Wigman: Ekberg: Wigman: Ekberg: Wigman: Ekberg: Wigman: Peterson: Wigman: Peterson: this person. We've had the legal department and the real estate department. I just can't imagine that once we can talk to somebody that we can't get somebody's either yes or no in a pretty short order once we show them what's going on on the site. Um.... So that begs the question. This project has probably been going on for several months now. And um, my question is how frequently have you tried to contact your tenants to get their feedback on this? Well, we've obviously called Joann's and they responded quickly. Right. Borders, you know, I've called them personally probably six to eight times. And then Steve Burnett with ING has personally called both the legal department and Miss Pam Lint at Borders at least two or three times. Over the course of one week or over the course of four months? No, probably over the, you know, most we were working with um, uh, with Joann's earlier, but since oure .mostly since our last meeting, probably over the last three weeks. - Okay. That's what I thought. Uh, huh. (Affirmative) Thank you. Alright. Maybe this is an inappropriate question, but you're, you're trying to protect the interests of one of your tenants, Joann's. Have you contacted the current owners of this property and attempted to purchase it in an effort to protect Joann's... Actually I talked to Brad and asked him that, if he wanted to sell it and he said, "No." But I understand that. He's not building it to see it, so.... Okay. That's an avenue that was... Wigman: Just a quick question and, you know, he 21 responded in a five minute phone call. So not a lot of talk has gone into that. So I guess in summary what I would ask is that um, you know, either you guys take a look at this and, you know, suggest some alternative designs that fit and work well with the rest of the surroundings buildings or, you know, allow us more time to try to get a hold of, you know, borders and work something out. I don't know exactly what we could do, but you know, but if they pushed the whole building out forward and flip - flopped it and we did a land trade for that little chunk of land or something. I mean I'm not sure what we can or can't do, but uh, um, I think there's a lot better options than what they've got designed and, you know, a small delay versus building something that's going to be there for a long, long time is, could be a mistake, so... Malina: Thank you. And with that (unintelligible). I'd ask you to state your name and address. Drews: (unintelligible) Good evening. I'm Catherine Drews representing Joann's Fabrics. My address is 925 Fourth Avenue, Suite 2900 Seattle, Washington 98104. Um, basically what I would like to do tonight is read into the record sent by Joann's senior counsel and I think we should have it on the record and it seems like Mr. Wigman and Mr. Noonan have covered all the points very succinctly, so this is a short letter. So I'll go ahead and just read it into the record for your benefit. It says, "Ladies and gentlemen. After review of the revised proposal for this project, Joann's Stores Inc. continues to oppose the application. While Joann's appreciates the efforts made by the applicant to improve the conditions near Joann's storefronts, the problems created by the design and placement of the building remain. The project as proposed is not .harmonious in scale nor is it harmonious with adjacent neighboring buildings as required under the Tukwila Municipal Code and Comprehensive Plan. Specifically we are concerned that the proximity of the proposed building to Joann's store, coupled with the height of the proposed building :will create a tunnel like atmosphere to the common access road between Joann's store and the proposed building. This may create an uncomfortable atmosphere for our customers. Also the applicants revised proposal shows that the common access road between the stores will only be two car widths wide. During peak shopping hours, access through this road will be 22 congested. This congestion will only worsen when delivery vehicles for the tenants of the proposed building stop and idle in the road while deliveries are made. The congestion will also create unsafe conditions for pedestrians crossing between the shopping center and the proposed buildings. To alleviate these issues we encourage the board to require the proposed building to be located closer to Southcenter Parkway as the board discussed during the September 26t 2004 public hearing. This siting would eliminate the tunnel like atmosphere between the two buildings and improve pedestrian safety and traffic flow. Also we stated in the previous letter, the proposed building will create a parking problem for our customers. Access into this building's northeast parking lot will be difficult because cars are likely to back up where the parkway and the shopping center meet. Patrons may," excuse me, "Patrons will bypass the entry into the northeast parking lot in front of the applicants proposed building. Instead of parking in front of the proposed building, the patrons will drive behind the proposed building, park in front of Joann's store, on the side of the proposed building, and will walk to the front of the proposed building. Over 90% of Joann's customers are women and many of these women are middle aged or above. Our female customers will not park on the north side of Joann's store. If the proposed building is built, our customers will be forced to park farther away, near the bookstore or worse yet, choose not to park at all. Finally the height of the proposed multi- tenant building will prevent the public traveling south on Southcenter Parkway from Joann's store until they are right on top of the store. The placement of the building to the south of the lot will make this visibility problem worse. We ask the board to insure the project meets all the development standards and requirements of the City of Tukwila Municipal Code and Comprehensive Plan. Thank you. Sincerely, Mr. Robert D. Eisman, Senior Legal Counsel." And I have provided the original copy to Moira. That's all I have. Thank you. Peterson: Was that the lawyer's opinion or was that a summary of some consultant that you guys retained? Drews: No this is the opinion of Joann's uh, you know, legal counsel, working with their people in the retail store who actually are there every day on 23 Peterson: Drews: Peterson: Drews: Peterson: Drews: Peterson: Drews: Ekberg: Drews: Ekberg: Drews: Ekberg: Drews: Ekberg: Drews: Ekberg: the ground. Okay. I did not draft the letter. Yes. Not that I would expect, `cause you're not the applicant, you know, to burden yourself with going out... No. ...and getting consultants. And I think didn't the City have a consultant look at this and (unintelligible). Yes the City did have a consultant. Okay. I was just trying to understand whether, what you're reading was a summary of some other consultant you guys had gotten or whether it was just a (unintelligible)? No it's not, (unintelligible) work on Joann's (unintelligible). Catherine? Yes. If the applicant complied with the items that you listed, do you think that the property owner of Joann's buildings would be able to work with the client, applicant? To work with the applicant, yes. Absolutely. Okay. They're not, you know, they're not opposed to having a building on the site. It's, it's um, you know, it's this large building that creates this tunnel like atmosphere, that's really the big issue for them and the proximity to the store. So in the... 'So we, you know, we'd like. Go ahead. I'm sorry. No, that's okay. I was going to ask in your opinion would the no build zone issue, dealing with contractual obligation go away even though it's still in the contract? 24 Drews: Ekberg: Drews: Ekberg: Malina: Drews: Malina: Scofield: I cannot speak to that right now. I'm unable to speak to that right now, give you a straight answer. But it's my opinion that that is a term that can be negotiated. Do you mean from Joann's perspective? Yes. From Joann's perspective as a tenant in the building that has a contractual obligation with the property owner for a no build zone out front. Joann's is willing to work with ING on that issue. Okay. Anything else? Thank you. (unintelligible). Okay. Thank you. Bob? State your name and address please record. for the My name is Bob Scofield. I'm at 221 Minor Avenue North, Seattle, Washington. I guess I'm just a little bit, I don't quite understand. Richard you come in here tonight, you weren't at the last meeting. You didn't hear what was at the last meeting. If you had you wouldn't have said the things you said. Joann's comes in and says we'd like to have you move the building forward. Chuck calls us this week and he said, "Oh, let's swap the land. So let's move the building forward." So now he tells you that Borders won't talk, won't talk to them. Well if they move the building forward, like Joann's wants, I guarantee you that Borders would not allow it. Um, we've been working on this project for a long time and when we first got the project we called Chuck's boss, Steve Latimer. We went up to his office and met with him and sat down and showed him what we were doing and basically said, I want nothing to do with it. We're not going to work with He had every opportunity to buy the land. guys. bought the property their lawyers, their real estate people, Steve Latimer, Chuck, everyone of them had the right to look at that piece of land and say, what can happen there? What could we build there? What can somebody build there? Let's look at the code. So this should be no surprise to anybody. Joann's, I believe that Joann's has a very strong legal staff. I know that their real estate department is, is really a sharp real estate department. 25 When they signed the lease and they had this clause that they're now putting over ING, they said they had every right to ask what can go on this land that's out here where the Winners Restaurant is. And what are the easements? What is the protection for the drive through. Just as the fire department said, and we want this (unintelligible) we want it a certain width. I believe Joann's had every right, just as ING did that we had and I believe that they probably studied every one of these things. Now, at the eleventh hour we get this letter and Richard comes in, who hasn't been involved before. Chuck comes in to us a couple of days and says "Let's flip the land. We'll swap you this land." We've been working on this since last December. We bought it based on certain codes and we've acted in good faith all the way through. I believe that with Moira's help we have learned a lot about how to work with the City and to design a safe and effective project within the code. And I believe that we can meet every one of the safety requirements there. Um, I'd just like to address a couple of specifics. Again tonight we have the letter from Joann's. And what they're stating is oh, it's not going to be safe. Well the study that was done for the City on safety said that this is going to be a safer location now. The traffic is going to be lessened and that was based on the fact that we had a 19,500 square foot building. We're now down to 16,600. So all their, excuse me, 18,600, so all the statistics that they said, the building was going to be a safer, it was going to be safer driving and everything, it's even going to be safer because we're smaller. The parking. Joann's continues to say that the people are going to have to walk farther to the front of their building. That they won't park on the side. Richard, if you had been here and Catherine I think you were, -here, I got up here. I had the charts. I had the studies. We have the statistics on restaurant parking. We have the traffic study that said the parking was going to be better, the traffic was going to be better. And I showed that when the restaurant is open, that the parking goes way out past the front of Joann's. And that typically women like to park within a 150 radius of the front door, but all that parking was being used by this, by the restaurant. So they couldn't park in front. And we now know that they will, because our parking, we don't have that type of parking that the restaurant has. We don't have that need. We don't have that peak period. Those peak 26 periods and most of our parking is going to be over on the other side of the building. So it's going to be a safer, better parking situation and if your counsel's would like to take and debate me on that or sit down and have me explain it, I'd be happy to explain it to them. They're not here so I can't. And when they write a letter on the last night I don't have a chance to defend it with them. Um, I would also like to say that when, when we first started working on this and Joann's real estate person in Cleveland called me, and he said, he said, "What are you going to do there ?" I said "We're going to build a building." He said, "Are you going to put a restaurant there ?" I said, "No, we're not going to do any restaurants." He said, "Oh, thank God." He said, "That restaurant has just taken all of our parking. We're so happy. That's great." That's what their real estate department told me. I don't think that they're communicating. Um, Joann's has never contacted us. Never tried to work with us. Um, obviously they don't allow the ING people to work with us. So we worked with Moira and I'd just like to address this situation of this plaza we put their because they asked us. So we have lost money. I've lost income. We've lost value, trying to figure this out. Here is the parking (unintelligible). There is the'. flower bed (unintelligible). We're building a plaza there. There is our building. Here is Joann's. First of all (unintelligible) walk directly to Joann's. So they're not going to walk across that, because the entrance is there and this is over. But if they do, they're going to walk across (unintelligible) THE MICROPHONE IS CONTINUALLY BREAKING UP MAKING IT IMPOSSIBLE TO HEAR EVERYTHING THAT'S BEING SAID. AGAIN VOICE ACTIVATION IS A MAJOR CAUSE OF THIS PROBLEM Scofield: ....a low landscaped area of several feet and we'd be more than happy to put pads in there, re- landscape it, whatever, but we're not allowed to do that. So if it's a concern about safety because somebody has got to walk across that, which I don't think they will because they ;(unintelligible). Then we will be happy to put a low fence there, so it would discourage people from walking and they'll have to walk around. We don't have (unintelligible) a door on the south side. That's an emergency exit to our (unintelligible). Our parking is going to be up on our front parking lot. There's no reason for somebody to be parking in front of Joann's if 27 Malina: Bradshaw: they're coming to, into our center. Um, we, we have been willing to work. We've worked with Moria and at first I don't think we heard her well enough. I don't think we knew how to work with the City. And I think that Brad and Moira have established a relationship and we have been able to make a lot of progress that we weren't able to make at first because I don't think we had our eyes open enough. Joann's doesn't communicate. ING won't work with us. So we're willing to do anything it takes for the safety of this, that we're allowed to do by law. We will offer to them, we'll do it on their property, pay for it, if it's something the City would like. I think we can meet it all within our own, within our own lot. We've met the code. Um, we'll recess our doors or we'll take and have sliding doors so we won't go out into our sidewalk, so I think that's an non - issue. We'll have that 48 clear. Um, and we would just say that we've worked on this, this is our third time, (unintelligible) review. I think there has been ample time for everybody to speak and to ask for a continuance by bringing a letter in on the night when nobody even gets a chance to review it, and um, to say that it's a tunnel. It's the same as it's always been. It's the same width that's required by the code, that's required by the fire department. Um, there's, there will be less traffic. The safety engineers say it's going to be safer. The parking problem is going to be a beneficial parking situation for them. The site visibility that they're saying, we've talked about that. I drove it again today. When you look, when you're driving down you have to go just like that to see Joann's. It's not going to change. Joann's has the biggest pile -on sign, location at the top of the sign. That's the most important asset. So the attorneys are sitting downtown. They're writing these things. I'm not exactly, I think he should be here to listen to these things to be fair to all of us. We ask your consideration. Um, we've uh, we'd just ask for your consideration. Thank you. Any questions? Thank you. And then we have :(unintelligible). Okay. With that... I have, I was just handed the letter (unintelligible). Here's the letter for the record and (unintelligible) from ING, signed by Steve Burnett, regarding the proposed development. 28 Meryhew: Basically what he told us, is that what you ... Bradshaw: (unintelligible)? VARIOUS PEOPLE TALKING IN THE BACKGROUND AND OVER EACH OTHER, NOT POSSIBLE TO BREAK OUT MORE THAN A FEW WORDS HERE AND THERE. Ekberg: Nah, just pass them around. Moira you mentioned earlier in your opening remarks the risk manager potentially getting involved, you know.... Bradshaw: Ekberg: Bradshaw: Ekberg: Bradshaw: Ekberg: Uh, huh. (Affirmative) ..for some approvals of some design? Um to this point how is that individual been involved? Uh, they have not been involved. Okay. Do they work, what department do they work in? Uh, Adam Dorshel, the finance director, is our risk manager. Okay. Bradshaw: And the discussion we'd had would be that given that these are some of civil site plan types of details, tha 't's perhaps you'd be comfortable uh, having that resolved prior to issuance of building permit with concurrence of the City's risk manager. That's another (unintelligible). Peterson: The question about the safety problem.... Bradshaw: Uh, huh. (Affirmative). Peterson: ..that would be at the southeast corner there? Bradshaw: Yes. Uh, huh. Peterson: Is the hazard any different than if I was to park, like let's say that parking spot right next to that was open. If somebody parked their car, the next one over and then cut across the top of that? Isn't that the same? I mean it's 'a little different. Maybe you'd have a little more traffic for people (unintelligible). But isn't it literally the same hazard now as it would be if they sold off the property? Bradshaw: The, the thinking on that is that the um, if you were parked in a stall one removed from that, first of all you get out and you're on the Peterson: Bradshaw: Peterson: Bradshaw: Peterson: Bradshaw: Peterson: Bradshaw: Peterson: Bradshaw: Peterson: Bradshaw: Peterson: Bradshaw: Peterson: asphalt driveway, the surface of the driveway. And you would uh, step up and you'd have a 10 foot, you know, the width of a stall, so you're sort of expect it. You'd see it. You'd expect it. You're getting out. You'd walk up and over. The distance that would be that established by building up to the property line as it's currently shown with the sidewalk plaza area. And then you have.... Oh, that's raised right there? Yeah, that would be raised. It's raised ... Oh, I see. ...depressed, raised and the... Okay. I got it. Now I've got it. ...width if variable from one point, from left to right. Um, I think it uh, some people not even see it, `cause they're walking on, along at a level, just a little raise and uh, and then the landscaping continues kind of at that level, but then there's this drop and then it raises again. Did the applicant (unintelligible) to mitigate that? It, that was one idea that was discussed. Um, dropping the plaza so that it goes down to the level of the parking area as it exists now. And then what would they do with it, to keep that, plaza separated from that first compact spot, the southeast corner there? Would they put a curb in there or something if they did that? Uh, yeah. I mean it could raise. It would almost be like a handicap where it could... Oh, okay. (Unintelligible). ...yeah, dip down. Okay. Something to keep a car from driving into that little plaza (unintelligible). Right. But they haven't come to you with some formal thing that they (unintelligible). 30 Bradshaw: No, no. Peterson: Ekberg: Marvin: Bradshaw: Ekberg: Bradshaw: Malina: Bradshaw: Malina: Bradshaw: Malina: Bradshaw: Okay. Go ahead. Does ING have any obligation to accommodate any design issues in this project? No. Moira can you address the five foot, canopy depth of five feet along the east side and the south sides versus what the applicant said, five feet is not allowed per code? The five foot canopy depth, that, uh, I overlooked the 10 foot setback. The property line, as you know, drops back. And so you've got another 10 foot that is directly in front of that. And hence the reason for the three canopy depth, along the southern part of that east side. So there's, there's not much choice in terms of that canopy depth. You could still extend it on the south side uh, and I guess my impression also was that that uh, double doors that opened on the south side was going to be an entry way and I think we heard tonight from Mr. Scofield is that those are emergency. Those will only be'for emergency exits. So the functionality of it is not as um, not as critical at this point. Well now, what you're saying now, instead of the five foot depth of canopy (unintelligible)? To keep it the way it is. It's, it's five feet along most of the frontage and then three feet where you've got the setback issue and then 18 inches on the north and south sides. So actually we can just eliminate this. That's correct. Why don't we give you an opportunity to rebuttal as to, if you have any rebuttal at all? I think that the applicant has uh, talked with you about the conditions. They feel like they can meet the 48 inches of walkway along the front, which is um, I think important from our standpoint in terms of meeting the guidelines. And also expressed the ability to solve the problem of the grade difference along that 31 Meryhew: When you talk about southeast corner, are, aren't we talking about the southwest corner? Southwest, I'm sorry, southwest. Okay. That's, you both, you've thrown me off curve here. So it is the southwest corner we're talking about? Sorry, confusing everybody. Southwest. Right. How about um, I have some notes here that says a landscape plan has not been (unintelligible). We had one for the original submittal, but we didn't get a revised one for the new site plan. Anything else of staff? Well the handicapped stall, they said that they can angle it ... Uh, huh. (Affirmative) ...not move that halfway (unintelligible)? The main concern was the ability to actually functionally use that handicapped stall. It sounds like there are a couple solutions. I think that there's enough width in there that if we need to put two five foot zones, one of which would be co- located with a pedestrian exit or else um, angling the stall, as suggested by the applicant, um, we'll have to kind of look at that, scale it out and see how they work. 'Maybe the question I have, from, from the staff recommendation was that by moving that walkway over, does that handicapped need to have like a side area for loading... Bradshaw: Yes. That's what they were talking about. There's a five foot requirement for that. Bradshaw: Meryhew: Bradshaw: Malina: Bradshaw: Malina: Peterson: Bradshaw: Peterson: Bradshaw: Peterson: southeast corner where the transition currently isn't well thought out, with the left over curbing and parking stall on the adjacent property. And uh, they don't seem to be objecting to any of the other ones. So except for the setback issues and entrance, I think staff, which staff recognizes and would be willing to delete from the list of conditions, I think that they have said that they've agreed with them all. 32 Peterson: Okay. So they would like of have to move all those slots down and maybe move the parking spot out front, by going with the staff's recommendation? Bradshaw: Possibly. Our thought would be that there would be enough width to do two five foot uh, uh, paths, one of which would be co- located with the one that goes out to the street. Peterson: Okay. Malina: Anything else for the staff? We have the applicant rebuttal, if you want to hear more? Meryhew: Maybe you ought to give them all a chance. Malina: Yes. Give me your name and address please for the record again. Decker: It's Brad Decker, 117 East Lousia Street, #230, Seattle, Washington, 98102. Um, maybe suggestion to propose another condition to that, on the applicant for us. To meet all these concerns of safety it's important to us too. So we'd be willing to propose that we meet um, resolving the safety on our, on our property. We feel we can do that through either fencing or adjusting the grades to meet and willing to do that to resolve any safety issues. So I would recommend that also as a proposal. The other thing, Joann's talks about a tunnel issue. You have to understand that Winners is already there and Winners is built right out of that no -build zone. It's the same as what we have now. We're just extending the building further south. We've got the same tunnel issue. I.... Marvin: You're saying that Winners is in the same place that this is going to be? Decker: On the north portion there Winners is build... Man: (Unintelligible) get up there. But there is a no -build zone. Right in front of there is .... Man: (Unintelligible). Decker: The current Winners Restaurant is built right here. Right, right here. If you, as you walk into the sidewalk comes in right here and it's right here. I don't understand the tunnel effect. And this is seven, you know, they say it's a tunnel, an alley. What's the width of an alley, 15 feet? 33 Malina: I think that's (unintelligible) north and south. Right there. Decker: This is 50 feet going to 70, 80, 90, 100 feet on this. An alley is 15, 20 feet. There's a quite a difference. It's not an alley, so... The other thing is Joann's, they're wise retail people. That's why when they secured the site, they recognized because of their visibility being blocked, they got the top sign of the pile - sign. When you come down Southcenter Parkway, your eye doesn't try to look for the store. It looks at the pile - sign. And that's right at the entrance where you turn in. When you turn in the entrance, which is farther south, you see Joann's right there with their big sign on their building. So I would disagree that we're blocking their visibility. Because when you're going down right now, the Winners um, by the way which is only, we're dropping this building, I think our 33 feet is our height and the current Winners is something like 23, 28, 29. We're 33. We're dropping it two feet. So there's a couple of feet difference in height. So I would disagree that, also on that effect. And the other thing is, we, we've worked in good faith here. We initially went to ING to work with them. That was 10 months ago. We have been available and willing to meet with them and we have four times. Actually there might be a fifth time. And this is actually our third time, August was the first time we were supposed to be here. There wasn't a quorum. And I wish we would have, anyways I changed my vacation, broke my leg `cause of it. So anyway the second meeting was continued. This is our third time that we'_ve tried to come here. So we, we request that you earnestly consider our proposal and we appreciate your time. Malina: Anything of the applicant ?.: No. Okay. Wigman: Just real quick with what all has come up. Um, like we said, we don't have a problem with them building the building. Where we have a problem with them building the building is, you know, building the building on the existing parking that's there right now. If they go put it out on that block over there and create parking, um, that's fine with us. You know, they can do whatever they want. They, I'm sure they're meeting code and can do all that stuff, but you know, the job here is to look at the design and how it relates to the other buildings around it. And, you know, when Brad has come to us in the 34 past and uh, said that we have not been cooperative, I mean you know the first building he showed us was 26,000 square feet and covered pretty much the whole site. You know, we said, no we don't like that. You know, why would we? We don't like what they're designing now. Um, and, and I did call Brad and threw out some ideas that I can't even commit to. I was just saying if we could, would you guys consider this? And um, you know, I understand they're well, they're trying to lease it out and do all that kind of stuff, but uh, um, you know, he basically said, "No. We wouldn't be interested in that at this point." So um, I, I think that with what they've got, and, you know, regardless of how many times they come back to us and say, cooperate with us to allow us to build this building, we're going to say no, `cause it's not good retail design. It's not good for the center. I'll just reiterate that. And, and uh, just want you know that we are trying to be cooperative. Just we have some issues. And you know, if they want to go build out on the corner of the site and do what George suggested and build it out at the edge and, you know, create a parking courtyard in between it, go get them. There is not much we can say. And our no -build zone is only that little, really that little notch that's outside, outside the area there. 'You know, we don't have any control over their site. So, just a little clarification. Any questions? Man: (Unintelligible). Man: Okay. Scofield: Bob Scofield, 221 Minor Avenue North, Seattle, Washington. Um, I think Brad hit it. When I lease a shopping center and somebody has poor visibility, they generally,get the best on the pile -on sign. TAPE TWO, SIDE ONE - OCTOBER 14, 2004 Scofield: Joann's would have never taken that space in that center with Winners there if they didn't get the top on the pile -on sign. That's what they got. That's what you got. This is what you see from the street. Whether it's Winners or whether it's this building that we're proposing it doesn't change. Now Chuck was not here when that lease was negotiated, but I've, I've been negotiating leases for about 35 years and that sign right there on, on Southcenter 35 Malina: Catherine? Parkway, I'll tell you what it's worth. It is worth triple the rent in certain spaces and I have the figures to show that. That's how important that is. How Joann's got that is because they had Winners out there in front of them. So to come back now and to say we should not be allowed and they, they say in their letter that it was 33 feet and our building was 18 feet, well it's, our building is 33 and theirs was 28 1 1 and we're dropping our site down two feet so it's a very small differential. So they're using that and they're saying now the proximity, the alley, it's not an alley. There's a lot of space there, 70 feet. And they just forget what they got originally. They're not losing any of it and for them to use this to say that we should not be allowed to do a building that's within code, that's recommended by staff and that we think is a wonderful building and that the people that have signed our letters of intent and want to be there, they think it's a wonderful building. And um, we're willing to work with the City in any way and we thank you again for your cooperation. I won't be up here again. Drews: Catherine Drews, 925 Fourth Avenue, Suite 2900, Seattle, Washington, 98104. I would just like to ask the board to please consider the record thoroughly and not to consider unsubstantiated testimony that's been presented to this board. But to please carefully review the record when making its decision. Thank you. Malina: (Unintelligible). Just covering my bases. LAUGHTER Malina: With that I think I'll close the public hearing and open it up for (unintelligible). Arthur: Oh, sitting on the end is always kind (unintelligible). Malina: Isn't it. Been there. Arthur: Um, to begin with I am troubled by a number of things at this meeting. One was uh, something I stated in the last time we got together on this subject. I'd kind of like to know what we're approving. I'd like to be able to take the recommendations that staff has made and say, yes, no, yes, no, do I agree. And then we'd 36 come to a conclusion for the purpose of making Tukwila a better place. I guess. I think we've done that. Here again I'm really not sure what we're being asked to approve totally. Um, admittedly or at least according to staff, I was expecting to see some landscaping plans. And as I understand we have an incomplete set of plans again. Last time we had more than enough plans to pick from. Now we don't have a full set of plans. Some of the things that we have received conflict with one another. Um, like the trellises in an area where there is no landscaping and then we're going to add that a little bit later. Uh, that's fine. I'd like to see what you really are proposing. Are sliding doors here or different treatments here and there. Again I'll say, I like to know what we're being asked to approve or disapprove. And I don't see it before us. This, this troubles me again. I guess above and beyond that um, we have documented several places within the testimony, several places within the written record that there are a number of safety issues and there are a number things that are, would occur as a result of a recommendation action to approve, that are in direct conflict with some of the things that we operate under. Uh, for instance, we have a requirement under the BAR, improve landscaping areas. Yet throughout the staff report' and throughout some of the verbal testimony, we understand that there's nothing that can be done and probably traffic, the pedestrian traffic will increase through the existing landscaping areas. Um, I try to go along with what we're supposed to accomplish here at the BAR. And when that becomes difficult, then we have to, to make & choice to approve or deny. Where we're confronted with a situation where, where what we are being asked to do is diametrically opposed to what we're supposed to be doing, then-I have a real problem. And I don't really have a choice there in my own mind. Um, I'm not going to go against what we're supposed to be upholding up here. Underneath it all in this particular instance, I think, as long as I've been around and as long as I've been attending,hearings, I don't think 'I've ever seen a, a conclusion uh, that states clearly and I quote "However, until the applicant is able to work with the adjacent property owner there will be unsafe and substandard conditions associated with this redevelopment in whatever shape it takes." I can only conclude that the safety issues need to be resolved between the owners of the various 37 properties or this statement in the recommendation section and conclusion sections of the staff report is not going to go away. And I don't think it should. And so I guess at this juncture, um, but it's particularly troubling when the applicant says that he is unable or has been unable or the other parties are unwilling to work. Here's a recommendation direct from staff uh, that says uh, part of the recommendation process is to encourage the applicant to work with adjoining neighbors to improve the plantings adjacent to the parking area on the north side. Uh, to improve plantings adjacent to the south of the building. But you say this is impossible, we can't do it. They're unwilling to work with us. So here you're pretty much stating to us that uh, you can't comply with the staff's recommendation in a significant area in my mind. Um, I guess you're kind of up in the air now as to what's going to go on. But uh, unless somebody has some compelling uh, statements around the rest of the corner. I guess I would prefer to see something done. But something done that's right and done with cooperation. And so I would be willing to go along with a suggestion that this be continued until you get together with staff and work out an agreement that we can understand, that we know what we're going to be approving and clear up the safety issues with the adjoining property. Or in the alternative uh, if somebody wants to make a recommendation to deny, I'll listen to that too. But after hearing this for what, a couple weeks now, particularly reading the staff report, this is the only place that I'm coming to rest at this point. Ekberg: I have had the pleasure of hearing contradicting views from the applicant and the :adjacent property owner and also from staff in what needs to be approved or recommended to the board. Um, my only thought and I don't 100% agree with what Bill had to say on every aspect of it, but I do agree this, is that we do need to have a defined list of requirements and recommendations in front of us, so we can make an adequate 'decision. And I'm coming from the position of understanding that this is a property in the City of Tukwila. Understanding that we are the Board of Architectural Review and the property owner has a right for development. What I'd like to see from our staff is the ultimate recommendations for the board to make a decision on. That's where I'm at right now. 38 Meryhew: I guess I'm pretty much in line with, with Allen's comments. I'm not sure that you can get the applicant and the other owners in there to agree. I think that's a major problem and therefore I think we ought to proceed without that agreement, but make sure that the safety issues are covered, without necessarily getting an agreement between any of the parties. Because it looks to me like that, ING and Borders and Joann's can effectively stop this thing by just, by just not agreeing if we don't, we don't proceed without and go ahead with the project. Um, I think the project is a great thing for the community and, and uh, for the area down there. There are some safety issues that need to be resolved. I think what I heard tonight is that there are ways to resolve those with a fence for one thing. That may not be the best way, but that will work. And also revised the handicapped area so that that's not a problem. The um, there seems to be adequate parking. That doesn't seem to be a problem. That has to be one of our major concerns and that doesn't seem to be a problem. Visibility of Joann's, that's not our problem. We are not here to protect visibility. We don't protect views in this city. We don't protect (unintelligible) and that includes views of one building to another. That's, that's not a function of our business here. The objective is to design the building and the landscaping to fit the project or the area. And whether or not it adjusts, meets the visibility requirements of a neighbor doesn't, that's not a problem we face. That's not a problem that the City needs to be looking at. Uh, we do not protect the views in any way. Sliding doors are a good alternative. I think the, the width of the sidewalk needs to be a little bit more than the two feet or the three feet. Two feet or three feet. So I think the sliding doors or the setbacks on the doors would solve that problem. I don't think that's a major problem to fix that. Um, I think that pretty well covers my feelings on the thing. I uh, would vote also to continue this until these things are resolved, but not necessarily between neighbors. Marvin: Well I agree with (unintelligible) Commissioner Arthur. Also I still personally have a problem with the building layout in accordance with the existing buildings. Woman: (unintelligible)not hear this. Marvin: Is that better? Woman: Yes. Marvin: Okay. Sorry. I agree with some of the things that Commissioner Arthur said and the other commissioners. My main problem with this project is building layout in accordance with the existing buildings. I think that uh, there are better alternatives. There are more harmonic, harmonious and I'm citing the uh, "building design, building should appropriate scale and harmony with permanent neighboring developments." And also um, their comprehensive plan policies uh, bottom of (unintelligible) 1.7 "Are un- congested with smooth flowing traffic patterns are well maintained with adequate (unintelligible) landscaping and are wholesome and in harmony with adjacent uses." Um, there are several ways you can look at that. And the one way I look at it is, harmonious buildings, not being crowded, using the space that is available to the highest standard that we can use it. I'm not sure if that's and that's my main concern. Peterson: I guess I would concur with many of the points. Like Commissioner Arthur said, it would be nice to have a complete package and then some of that may be (unintelligible). Like for instance, I, I'm kind of in line with Vern that I think there is kind of a stalemate that has developed between the property owners for barriers. There seem to be instru', instruments in place that are going to block that cooperation. But I think if the applicant comes forward with revised plans with these mitigations, like for instance the fence, mitigate some of the safety issues that have been raised. So if they could mitigate safety issues on their property, because of concerns that we have of the surrounding property, um, and come with complete plans to address that. I feel, I still, I have this sense that this going to crowd the ING, Joann's Fabrics property, but you have attempted to mitigate that by using translucent glass. I know I guess I would, if that could be made more storefront like, I as a commissioner, you know, like if you said this was (unintelligible) I don't know if I could recommend that. Or if this was like, short display. Something where people could come up and feel as if they weren't looking at the back of a building. I know you guys have made some efforts there. Um, that's something, I just, I know those buildings are 40 Malina: Ekberg: close and that I think is on everybody's mind. Um, but yeah, I guess I would say continue (unintelligible) just to have a little, a little further plan to satisfy the safety issues. With that I'11, I'll entertain a motion on L04- 036. I'll make the motion to continue this hearing to require and recommend staff come back with firm recommendations and new designs that meet what has been spoken of up here. And that's what I'd like to recommend. Bradshaw: Yeah, if I could just interject. I would really like you to say whether you agree or disagree with the recommended conditions that staff has laid out in the staff report. That would help us understand if we're completely addressing your concerns or not. There have been some... Marvin: Well I think my concerns aren't listed on... Bradshaw: Right so if... Maryhew: ...you can add those we can make sure we have a complete list. Arthur: I can give you mine too. Man: Okay. Arthur: Okay. And that is safety. And two would be the improvement, maintenance of the landscaping at the north end particularly and the south end of the property. Bradshaw: So you're talking off site landscape? Arthur: Is that on site or, I thought it was kind of a shared, there.... Bradshaw: I think that these, I think you're talking off site. Man: Oh, off -site. Meryhew: Can't do that. Arthur: Can't do that. Meryhew: The only landscaping is... Man: Okay. 41 Meryhew: Malina: Meryhew: Malina: Bradshaw: Malina: Man: Malina: Meryhew: Bradshaw: Meryhew: Bradshaw: Meryhew: Ekberg: Meryhew: Man: Meryhew: The only landscaping I think we can address is the, on the east or the west side there by the tele (unintelligible). I think you can ask for... A landscape plan. ...a revised plan. A landscape plan for the on site landscaping. (Unintelligible). Yeah. Um... How about the staff's other recommendations, well actually all of the recommendations, except for the one that we scratched out on the canopy for five, five foot canopies. (Unintelligible). That was in there. I think two other recommendations would be, one would be the 48 inch sidewalk, which the applicant has.. He's got that on the front, first one. Sliding door versus .... Revise the doors on the east side to meet the four foot requirements. And then are you... And uh, let's talk about the handicapped area, revision of the handicapped area, which I guess we've stated that, but instead of swapping it, just revise it to meet Revise it to meet.... ...safety requirements. And I think if we strike that whole last paragraph about the applicant should be encouraged to . work with the adjacent owner. I don't think there is any point in doing that. Well I agree... I don't think it works. I think you just let the applicant go on his own and do what he wants and forget about the adjacent owners. That would solve the problem. Solve the problem right. That's the only way you're going to get this thing through the, through. And... 42 Malina: At this point in time, Chuck has already said they've hired a landscape guy to, a gardener. mean they're taking care (unintelligible) realized they owned that portion (unintelligible). Meryhew: Did we talk about the fencing or railing along that southwest corner? Make sure that's included in there for the safety. Ekberg: And I'd have staff come back with a recommendation of what they believe is safe. Man: (Unintelligible). Ekberg: Again I'd like to reiterate that at each one of these meetings um, I've heard new information like the, what was the south entrance is no longer an entrance, it's an emergency exit only. So I'd like to have all those types of things cleared up so there ambiguity between what staff understands and what the applicant is telling us. Meryhew: With that I will second the motion. Malina: We have a motion ... Marvin: Okay. We've gone over the things written here. How about the things that were said that aren't written? Meryhew: I think we just did that too. We did that. Marvin: We did? Meryhew: Yeah, I think we just did unless you had something we missed? Marvin: Well my .... The items I had mentioned in my conclusion. Ekberg: I think you might have four commissioners overruling you Henry as far as relocation of site design and things of that nature. But Lynn came up with something that we might want to talk about. And that is giving the impression on the southeast corner of that building as if it is not just a blank wall. You might want to see if staff can address that somehow. Meryhew: Southwest corner? Ekberg: Yeah, southwest. Yeah. 43 CHANNEL TWO IS BREAKING UP CONSTANTLY, PROBABLY CAUSED BY THE VOICE ACTIVATION PROCESS, MAKING IT EXTREMELY DIFFICULT TO HEAR OTHER PEOPLE WHO ARE TALKING OVER EACH OTHER FREOUENTLY ALSO. Malina: ..and I t hink the applicant is probably (unintelligibe) And with that we have a motion and we have a second. Any further discussion? All those in favor of continuing this to another... Bradshaw: November 18 is your next regularly scheduled meeting. Malina: How is the other work on the 18 Do we have (unintelligible) a little bit? Bradshaw: The mall would like to be on that meeting. It's not certain that they will be. So it's sort of hard to tell right now. Hopefully it would be a quick item. Malina: Yeah, too close to Thanksgiving (unintelligible). We also.... Yeah, now the 18t will be our, normally November, December we move up our schedule by a week because of the... Bradshaw: Well it's the third Thursday because of Veteran's Day and Thanksgiving. It's in the middle. Malina: And it doesn't interfere with my hunting season. Okay. So with that we have a motion and a second for continuation to possibly November the 18 Bradshaw: Okay. Malina: All those in favor? Commissioners: Aye. ALL SAY AYE IN UNISON Malina: Those opposed. NO RESPONSE Malina: So be it. Bradshaw: (unintelligible). I certify, under penalty of perjury of the laws 44 tor of the State of Washington, that the foregoing will be true and correct to the best of my ability. Dated this) day of January, 2005. C otte Cor Transcriber �7 1ir The speaker sign in sheet from the 10/14/04 BAR hearing is unavailable and not included in this binder. 10 Exhibit from 10/14/04 Meeting frd 11 ING REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT Steven Brunette Vice President • October 14, 2004 Moira Carr Bradshaw City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Blvd, Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 Re: 17401 Southcenter Parkway - Proposed Retail Building - City of Tukwila File #L04 -036 Dear Moira: With this in mind, I respectfully request that the Board stay the hearing until such time as a design for alternate location can be created and reviewed. Any additional time that this I am writing on behalf of CLPF - Tukwila, L.P. ( "Owner "), the owner of the Park Place Shopping Center which surrounds the proposed building on the West, South and North. I have reviewed the proposed revisions to the re- development and continue to have concerns with the project. The proposed structure dramatically decreases street visibility of the Joanne's store, presents ingress and egress problems, and creates an awkward and potentially hazardous 'alley' along its western border with the Joanne's location. I thank you for your diligent efforts to date and appreciate that the proposed design revisions were made to mitigate some of these concerns. The revisions however, are not sufficient to remedy the fact that the site is ill- conceived for a structure of this size. If constructed as proposed, the building will materially and adversely impact our property, and our ability to provide a first -class retail environment to our roster of nationally recognized tenants. Owner reserves all rights it may have at law or in equity should this occur. One possible alternative would be to locate the structure further west, with frontage along Southcenter Parkway. This location would provide better access and a more equitable distribution of parking. If designed correctly, it may also enhance visibility of our building (relative to the proposed). A location along the street would be consistent with other first class retail operations. Although certain contractual obligations with in -place tenants prohibit Owner from being able to approve a land trade which could accommodate this new location, a well- thought out design for this location would be well received, and we would certainly review with our store operators. Ms. Moira Carr Bradshaw October 14, 2004 Page 2 of 2 requires it is certainly well- spent, considering that the completed structure will likely remain in place for many years. Sincerely, Steve Brunette Cc: Chuck Wiegman- JSH Properties Parker Mason, Esq. - Alston, Courtnage & Bassetti 12 JO-ANN October 14, 2004 stores ince City of Tukwila Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, #100 Tukwila, WA 98188 Attention: Ms. Moira Carr Bradshaw Ladies and Gentlemen: Re: Case Number L04 -036 17401 Southcenter Parkway Demolition of 9,300 square foot Winners Restaurant Robert D. Icsman Senior Legal Counsel Direct Dial: (330) 463 -3409 Direct Fax: (330) 463 -6660 . Email: roberticsman@jo- annstores.com After a review of the revised proposal for this project, Jo -Ann Stores, Inc. continues to oppose the application. While Jo -Ann appreciates the efforts made by the applicant to improve the conditions near Jo -Ann's storefront, the problems created by the design and placement of the building remain. The project, as proposed, is not harmonious in scale, nor is it harmonious with adjacent neighboring buildings as required under the Tukwila Municipal Code and Comprehensive Plan. Specifically, we are concerned that the proximity of the proposed building to Jo - Ann's store. coupled with the height of the proposed building, will create a tunnel - like atmosphere to the common- access road between Jo -Ann's store and the proposed building. This will create an uncomfortable atmosphere for our customers. Also, tlie>.applicant's revised proposal shows that the common access road between the stores will be only two car - widths wide. During peak shopping hours, access through this road will be congested. This congestion will only worsen when delivery vehicles forithe tenants of the proposed building stop and idle in the road while deliveries are made. The congestion will also create unsafe conditions for pedestrians crossing between the shopping center and the proposed building. To alleviate these issues, we encourage the Board to require: the proposed building to be located closer toSouthcenter Parkway, as the Board discussed duffing the,September 16, 2004 public hearing< siting would eliminate the tunnel - like atmosphere between the two buildings and improve pedestrian safety and traffic (10 . Also, as; stated in the previous letter, the proposed building will create a parking problem for our customers. Access into the proposed building's northeast parking lot will be difficult because cars .liker "615' k=up-where the Parkway and the shopping tenter meet. Patrons will bypass Carpiarate Office and Distribution Center 5555 Darrow Road, Hudson, Ohio 44236, Phone 330 - 656 -2600, www.joann.com Thank you. Sincerely, Robert D. Icsman Senior Legal Counsel RDI:bat cc: Kevin Kneeshaw, RVP Richard Noonan, DTL John Stec City of Tukwila Department of Community Development Attention: Ms. Moira Carr Bradshaw Page 2 of 2 the entry into the northeast parking lot in front of the applicant's proposed building. Instead of parking in front of the proposed building, the patrons will drive behind the proposed building, park in front of Jo-Ann's store (on the side of the proposed building), and walk to the front of the proposed building. Over 90% of Jo-Ann's customers are women, and many of those women are middle-aged or above. Our female customers will not park on the north side of Jo-Ann's store. If the proposed building is built, our customers will be forced to park farther away, near the bookstore, or worse yet, choose not to park at all. Finally, the height of the proposed multi-tenant building will prevent the public traveling south on Southcenter Parkway from seeing the Jo-Ann store until they are right "on top" of the store. The placement of the building to the south of the lot will make this visibility problem worse. We ask the Board to ensure the project meets all the development standards and requirements of the City of Tukwila Municipal Code and Comprehensive Plan. 1 g 13 City of Tukwila Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director FILE NUMBER: L04 -036 APPLICANT: Brad Decker OWNERS: Brad Decker STAFF REPORT TO THE BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW PREPARED 19 August 2004 HEARING DATE: 26 August 2004 NOTIFICATION: On 14 July 2004 Notice of Application was mailed to surrounding properties and posted on the site. Notice of Hearing was posted and mailed to surrounding properties and sent to the Seattle Times for publication on 13 August 2004. REQUESTS: Approval of design for a 20,039 square foot one story retail building. ASSOCIATED PERMITS: Demolition of the 9,300 square foot Winners restaurant LOCATION: 17401 Southcenter Parkway COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Tukwila Urban Center ZONE DESIGNATION: Tukwila Urban Center SEPA DETERMINATION: Determination of Nonsignificance STAFF: Moira Carr Bradshaw Steven M Mullet, Mayor 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206 -431 -3665 Staff Report to the L04 -036 Board of Architectural Review 17401 Southcenter Parkway ATTACHMENTS: A. Applicant's response to Design Review criteria B. Determination of Nonsignificance C. Ethan Allen July 27, 2004 Letter D. JoAnn July 28, 2004 Letter E. Common Access Easement Map F. Design Peer Review by Freedman Tung & Bottomley G. Parking Light Luminaire H. Wall Luminaire I. Design Set (Full size set delivered separately) L04 -036 Staff Report to the Board of Architectural Review 17401 Southcenter Parkway VICINITY /SITE INFORMATION FINDINGS Project Description A single story, 20,039 square foot retail building with accessory parking, landscaping, loading, and trash/recycling. Surrounding Land Uses The site is located along Southcenter Parkway (PY) in an area that is known for its auto oriented commercial businesses and character. The subject site is currently occupied by the 9,300 square foot Winners restaurant and is surrounded by one story retail and commercial services such as Ethan Allen to the north, Sanfords restaurant to the east, and Jo - Ann to the west. A vicinity map is on the first page of Attachment I. (A 1.0) PUBLIC COMMENT Two letters of comment were received from adjacent property owners or businesses. See Attachment C and D. In summary, the comments expressed concern about not having adequate lighting in the north parking area and for pedestrian safety for those customers and employees walking across the common driveway. Concern is raised due to a history of property vandalism/theft. Attachment E shows the common access locations on the adjacent site, which serve the subject site (Parcel A.) In addition, the Ethan Allen notes that the overall condition of an existing stop sign and plantings that are located with the common access areas are poor. There is also a concern about having sufficient parking and the ability for motorists to make a left turn out of the common access drive. The owner of Jo -Ann objects to the location of the building relative to their space and the impact this has on their store visibility and parking. These issues are addressed below under Design Review Criteria and Conclusions. DESIGN REVIEW CRITERIA 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; 3 Staff Report to the L04 -036 Board of Architectural Review 17401 Southcenter Parkway Five and six foot sidewalks are proposed adjacent to the front of the building. The store entrances will have doors that swing out into the entry path leaving three and two feet of sidewalk. From Southcenter PY, a handicap ramp is provided in addition to the existing set of stairs. An additional pedestrian path leads to the building from the northeast corner of the site to the public sidewalk. A three foot wide required pathway to the parking in the rear is shown along the south side of the building. There is currently about a five foot change in elevation between the sidewalk along Southcenter PY and the floor of the Winner's restaurant. The applicant proposes excavating approximately 3,000 cubic yards of dirt in order to provide grades in the front parking area that meet the City's minimum standard of 5 %. The floor of the new building will be approximately three feet above the sidewalk along Southcenter PY. The proposed building sits back approximately seventy -five feet from Southcenter PY and 38 of the required 80 parking stalls dominate the streetfront. b. Parking and service areas should be located, designed and screened to moderate the visual impact of large paved areas; Parking for the site is divided into three areas around the site - to the north adjacent to Ethan Allen, across a common access easement; to the west along the back of the proposed building; and to the east between the building and Southcentei PY, where approximately half of the required spaces are located. The minimum number of stalls required for retail are provided, no restaurants will be to be licensed for the site. The applicant provides approximately 1400 square feet of landscaping around the building to meet the 570 square feet of interior parking lot landscaping that is required for the parking in front, and the 400 total square feet that is required for each of the parking areas to the west and north of the building. The service area is screened but located adjacent to the front entry to an adjacent business. c. The height and scale of each building should be 'considered in relation to the site. The building varies in height from 20 to 33 + feet. 4 L04 -036 Staff Report to the Board of Architectural Review 17401 Southcenter Parkway 2. Relationship of Structure and Site to Adjoining Area. a. Harmony on texture, lines and masses is encouraged; The building is massed in a rectilinear shape along the back of the property effectively creating an alley like area between its rear and the adjacent property's building front. b. Appropriate landscape transition to adjoining properties should be provided; The landscape adjacent to the 20 parking stalls to the north of the building are owned by the adjacent property owner and not proposed for upgrade. The applicant states that the adjacent owner is unwilling to allow him to upgrade the existing landscaping. A small area of pavement is left over between the end of the three foot sidewalk on the south side of the building and the parking curb on the adjacent property, which could create a tripping hazard and is a poor transition. (See the southwest most corner of the site.) c. Public buildings and structures should be consistent with the established neighborhood character; d. Compatibility of vehicular pedestrian circulation patterns and loading facilities in terms of safety, efficiency and convenience should be encouraged; Two parallel loading spaces required by the Zoning Code are located along the northwest corner of the building adjacent to the common access drives and the rear of the building. e. Compatibility of on -site vehicular circulation with street circulation should be encouraged. The plan shows a rectangular building partially in front of the adjacent building to the west. The location of the proposed building interrupts the pedestrian circulation previously established between the two existing buildings /sites. A designated.walkway from the handicap ramp from the building behind to the new building will now dead -end at the back of the new building. The two parking areas fronting Southcenter PY that abut, sit on adjacent properties and do not connect. No landscape transition has been provided on the subject site between the two separate parking. areas. In fact, motorists using the southernmost parking stall, which is a handicap stall, are effectively given ten feet in which to reverse in order to exit. 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; • Staff Report to the L04 -036 Board of Architectural Review 17401 Southcenter Parkway The subject site sits above the street and is on a visual axis as one heads south on Southcenter PY. The northeast corner of the building will be visually prominent yet special treatment of this section of the building and recognition of this feature of the property is ignored. b. Grades of walks, parking spaces, terraces and other paved areas should promote safety and provide an inviting and stable appearance; The applicant proposes excavating approximately 3,000 cubic yards of earth in order to meet the maximum grade of 5% for the parking stalls in the front of the building. A combination of a ramp and steps provide access to the building entrances. A concrete pedestrian walkway from street to building within the front parking area will highlight pedestrian use. c. Landscape treatment should enhance architectural features, strengthen vistas and important axis, and provide shade; The City has adopted specific tree species for the urban center and identifies Red Oak for Southcenter PY. The proposed trees around the perimeter of the building - Bowhall Maples, have a dense canopy and provide screening during spring summer and fall d. In locations where plants will be susceptible to injury by pedestrian or motor traffic, mitigating steps should be taken; The north parking area is laid perpendicular to the proposed building with landscaping separating the customers from the business. No special treatment is proposed to allow customer pass throughs between parking and businesses. A parking area on the adjacent southern property will have a similar situation with parking that abuts the building perpendicular yet is separated by landscaping. e. Where building sites limit planting, the placement of trees or shrubs in paved areas is encouraged; Applicant shows landscaping in one foot deep beds along the north and west sides of the building as well as planted trellises in the rear. e. Screening of service yards, and other places that tend to be unsightly, should be accomplished by use of walls, fencing, planting or a combination; The recycling and trash area is located in the southwest corner of the building, which is effectively the rear of the building. This area is shown surrounded by the same material as the building, with painted metal doors. The proposed trash/recycling area is opposite 6 Staff Report to the L04 -036 Board of Architectural Review 17401 Southcenter Parkway and approximately 50 feet from the front entrance to the tenant space behind the proposed building. f. 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; The landscape areas to the south and north of the building that are owned by the adjacent property owner will likely be damaged because of their location between the businesses and the customers and employees and the inability of the applicant to modify adjacent properties. 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. Four utilitarian light fixtures (Attachment H) are shown on the rear and sides of the building. Two of them are located on the wall above the proposed canopies in the rear. The intended use according to the manufacturer is " outdoor storage areas, warehouse and factory perimeters and loading docks." The applicant states that no lighting other than parking lot lighting will be used in the other areas of the site. The "wall sconce" light fixtures shown on the elevations and discussed in the applicant's response to the design criteria should be ignored. g. 4. Building Design. a. Architectural style is not restricted, evaluation of a project should be 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; The overall height and scale are similar to surrounding buildings however; the placement of the structure ignores the adjacent building to the southwest. b. 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; The building's construction is to be painted concrete panels with a stucco finish. The cornice will be similar or shaped foam plastic with metal coping. The tile around the base will provide durability and a washable surface where wear will be the hardest. The dominant use of glass between the column -like vertical elements and under the canopies and open appearance to the front and corners of the structure creates a "market" type style of structure. The building entrances are not obvious elements of the design. 7 Staff Report to the L04 -036 Board of Architectural Review 17401 Southcenter Parkway The canopies are five feet in depth and the sidewalks are six feet in some places. In the rear of the building the canopies cover the trellises in all locations and the doors in only some instances. c. Colors should be harmonious, with bright or brilliant colors used only for accent; The building colors are predominately cream "stucco." Building material accents are beige colored tile around the base of the "column- like" features. The canopies and cornices are highlighted with blue, turquoise and red. d. Mechanical equipment or other utility hardware on roof ground or buildings should be screened from view; Mechanical equipment is proposed for rooftops and would be screened by the parapets of the building. f Exterior lighting should be part of the architectural concept. Fixtures, standards, and all exposed accessories should be harmonious with building design; Lighting of the site is utilitarian and not a part of the architectural concept. Details of the bike rack, benches, stairway railings have not been shown. h. 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 building measures 245 feet by 85 feet approximately. One offset of five feet is proposed along the front facade. A curved area along the rear, west facade is to accommodate a "no- build" easement for the existing building located behind the proposed structure. The no build easement was required per the Uniform Building Code. The applicant proposes metal canopies as a detail to provide interest along the front facade and trellises and canopies along the back facade. The edge of the roofline has a variety of steps and the cornice of the parapet edge is approximately 1.5 by 2.5 feet in depth. 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. Applicant shows two benches located in landscape areas along the south front facade but provides no design details. Proposed signage for the site is conceptual. A freestanding sign that is not setback the minimum distance is located within a landscape island in the front parking lot. Wall signs above the 8 L04 -036 Staff Report to the Board of Architectural Review 17401 Southcenter Parkway tenant spaces are also shown. Every business may have two signs, one on a wall and one on a freestanding sign or if the business has two outside walls it may have two wall signs instead of a wall and a spot on the freestanding sign. Sizes will be subject to the Tukwila Sign Code. b. Lighting in connection with miscellaneous structures and street furniture should meet the guidelines applicable to site, landscape and buildings. No lighting in connection with miscellaneous structures is shown. In addition to the specific criteria of the Board of Architectural Review, proposed development must show consistency with adopted plans and regulations (TMC 18.100.030) Below are the specific policies from the adopted Comprehensive Plan that relate to the location of the proposal. 6. Comprehensive Plan Policies a.. All Commercial Areas Goal 1.7: "Commercial districts that are visually attractive and add value to the community, are visitor and pedestrian friendly, are designed with pride and constructed with quality workmanship, are secure and safe with adequate lighting and convenient access, are uncongested with smooth flowing traffic patterns, are well - maintained with adequate,streetscape landscaping, and are wholesome and in harmony with adjacent uses ". 1. The design includes consideration of features that reflect characteristics of Tukwila's history (1.2.4). 2. The development provides adequate parking and lighting (1.7.3). Concern has been expressed by adjacent business that parking and lighting will not be adequate. A traffic report was prepared that states that traffic generated by the proposed 20,000 square foot retail space will be less than currently experienced by Winners restaurant and that parking supply will be sufficient for the proposed use. 3. In areas of concentrated commercial and retail activity, the development is connected by pedestrian facilities to the City's trail network, where feasible (1.11.4). The applicant has connected the site to the public sidewalk system at both the north and south points along their frontage. b. Tukwila Urban Center (TUC) Goal 10.2 "Encourage and allow a central focus for the Tukwila Urban Center, with natural and built environments that are attractive, functional, and distinctive, 9 Staff Report to the L04 -036 Board of Architectural Review 17401 Southcenter Parkway and supports a range of mixed uses promoting business, shopping, recreation, entertainment, and mixed use residential opportunities: " 1. Wherever possible, the development provides an interior vehicular connection between adjacent parking areas (10.2.4). Intemal circulation along the front of the site between the adjacent parking areas is not accomplished. 2. The development should be designed with an appropriate scale and proportion; pedestrian- oriented features and stree activity areas, such as ground floor windows, modulated facades, rich details in materials and signage; quality landscaping; an appropriate relationship to adjacent sites; an overall building quality; and with sensitivity to important features such as Green River and Tukwila Pond (10.2.7). The proposal provides six feet of sidewalk along the building entrances. Windows and doors blend into one another creating a glass wall. No details are proposed for these building elements. Modulation of the front facade consists of the "columns" that are appended to the building wall providing approximately 1 foot of "relief." One five foot offset in the building's 250 feet of length is provided. 3. Parking areas should be designed with appropriate screening, landscaping and corner site /parking relationships (10.2.6) A landscape area adjacent to 20 of the site's required parking stalls will remain in poor condition. Landscaping adjacent to the south property line could also deteriorate through customer traffic. 4. The development should achieve a high - quality design; contribute to the creation of hospitable pedestrian environments through site design techniques, such as integration of architectural /site design/landscape elements and co- existence of auto /transit /pedestrian traffic; should be designed to ' maximize pedestrian safety and convenience; and should incorporate physical and natural elements that enhance the area's overall aesthetic, in street orientation (10.2.3). Six feet of pedestrian walkway is shown adjacent to building entrances. An existing pedestrian pathway will dead -end at the rear of the proposed building. The applicant is providing multiple pedestrian pathways to the public street and sidewalk however, the placement of the building leaves the public streetfront isolated from the commercial storefronts. 1 0 Staff Report to the Board of Architectural Review 17401 Southcenter Parkway CONCLUSIONS L04 -036 The Board of Architectural Review, pursuant to Tukwila Municipal Code (TMC) Section 18.108.040, and upon finding of the facts above, hereby makes the following conclusions under the city's Design Review Criteria (TMC 18.60.050) and Determination of Consistency with Adopted Plans and Regulations for type 4 approvals (TMC 18.100.030.) The applicant has attempted to maximize use of the subject site creating extremely tight use of an unusually configured site. Negative relationships are being proposed for the new building relative to existing buildings /uses on the adjacent site and the streetfront. Finally, the applicant explains there is an inability to manipulate the off -site improvements to create adequate or safe transitions. Staff retained the services of an urban design firm that specializes in retail corridors and improvements in order to assist in the review of the proposal. Their review and conclusions are contained in Attachment F. (1) Relationship of Structure to Site. The site plan does not accomplish a desirable transition with the streetscape or provide adequate landscaping. Pedestrian movement is inadequate in some locations and adequate in others. Freedman Tung & Bottomley (FTB) suggest there are altematives to the proposed design that could be used by the applicant that would meet the City's design criteria. Currently the adjacent site has a building entrance that would face the trash/recycling area of the proposed building. The pedestrian crosswalk over the common access drive along the west side of the building leads to the back of the proposed building with no continuation around to any building entrances. Parking is divided among three separate areas helping to break up potentially large paved areas. The Loading area is appropriately located in the northwest corner; however, the recycling is in an inappropriate location that indicates a lack of regard for the adjacent property owner. (2) Relationship of Structure and Site to Adjoining Area. Retail tenants want parking in front of their doors and maximum visibility to motorists. Within that context, there must be.adequate amenity through high quality landscaping; safe, comfortable pedestrian transition areas; and connections to the other retailers in the area. The proposed plan does not establish a harmonious relationship with the adjacent site. The layout of the subject site seems to ignore the adjacent site and the constraints imposed by the site itself. The applicant has stated that he may not improve the condition of the lighting, landscaping or traffic stop sign in the common easement area because he lacks authority to maintain or improve them. The inability to resolve and work out issues with the adjacent property owner with whom they share common driveways and access creates substandard, potentially hazardous conditions. 11 Staff Report to the L04 -036 Board of Architectural Review 17401 Southcenter Parkway For example, curbing for parking to the south will exist without any relation to the new development and potentially be a safety hazard. Required parking will be adjacent to substandard, dying plants. The plantings will remain in poor condition and likely be damaged by the tenant's customers. In addition, the subject_site shares common driveways with the site to the west and south but is not able to connect the parking areas in front. Parking that sits adjacent to each other and that has rights to common access will not be internally accessible. The result is an awkward parking area transition, where two parking areas dead end adjacent to each other but don't connect. (3) Landscaping and Site Treatment. There is a curve in Southcenter PY that results in the subject site being a visual focal point for all eyes looking and traveling southbound on the Parkway. The layout of the site and the building do not take advantage of this site feature. When certain elements of design are used, like canopies, they should be functional as well as aesthetic. The canopy depth will leave customers and site tenants unprotected from rain and sun exposure because they are either poorly located or too shallow and create sun and rain shadow for plants that would survive better if they weren't there. A tree other than a Bowhall Maple, with a more open canopy, would be more appropriate for a retail district where businesses prefer visibility. In addition the Koster Blue Spruce located in the northeast corner will create visibility problems for the freestanding sign proposed for the site. Whereas the Raywood Ash is a high quality tree, the designated street tree for Southcenter PY is the Red Oak (Quercus Rubra.) Otherwise a good use of canopy trees has been provided for the main portion of the site. Additional ground cover around the shrubs will be needed to provide sufficient coverage. Customers walking to the businesses in the proposed building will damage plantings that exist along the north and south and that are proposed along the south of the site. No effort has been made to accommodate customer traffic through these landscape areas and over time the landscape will deteriorate further. (4) Building Design. The materials proposed ,for the building will be of sufficient quality to be durable and functional. The scale of the structure is in harmony with surrounding structures. The proposed colors are harmonious with the bright colors used as accent. Mechanical equipment will be screened by the rooftop behind the building's parapet. No effort has been made to incorporate lighting into the architecture of the site. Wintertime lighting should be an important element that enhances the design of the site in addition to providing a safe environment. 12 Staff Report to the Board of Architectural Review 17401 Southcenter Parkway (5) Miscellaneous Structures and Street Furniture. A conceptual sign design is shown. The freestanding (pole) sign will need to be reduced in height or set back an additional eight feet four inches. All tenants not identified on the freestanding sign may have two signs if there are located in a corner of the building and therefore have two walls facing in different directions. Colors, materials and the design choices for the miscellaneous structures are not known at this time. (6) Comprehensive Plan Policies. Overall parking supply is adequate, meeting the City's parking requirements and according to Transpo, transportation consultants for the applicant, traffic generated by the new retail tenants will be less than that produced by Winners. Modifications to the site and some of the improvements are necessary in order for the proposal to be in harmony with neighboring uses and to maximize pedestrian safety and convenience. Interior vehicular circulation should be provided if at all possible. Overall scale and proportion of the building is good yet it's windows and doors lack richness of detail expected from a building that receives design review approval. RECOMMENDATION 13 L04 -036 Staff recommends that the Board of Architectural Review continue the public hearing so that the applicant may bring back a redesign of the proposal that does the following: • improves the relationship between the proposed building, the trash and recycling area and the adjacent site; • creates a building focal element for the northeast corner; • selects lighting that is compatible architecturally with the building and during the evening emphasizes the architectural features of the building; • provides a minimum of eight feet of walkway along the front entrance to the building; • replaces the Raywood Ash with Northern Red Oak and increases the ground cover in the landscape areas; and • provides adequate lighting in the northwest corner of the site adjacent to the parking area. LANCE MUELLER 6 A : DCIATES AR C H I T EC TS June 4, 2004 A 1 A SC -3 RETAIL BUILDING PROJECT DESCRIPTION This project consists of demolition of the existing 9,300 s.f. Winner's Restaurant and construction of a new 20,200 s.f.± retail building. The site ingress and egress is by a common driveway from Southcenter Parkway or through the adjacent shopping center to the west and south. Parking for 81 cars is provided on the site, plus 2 truck loading spaces. The building will be constructed of concrete with cast in reveals for pattern and visual interest. The roofline will be modulated with steps, pitched and arched parapet forms and formed cornice detailing. Metal canopies over entry storefronts will add shelter, color and projecting elements to the wall plane. The east wall has two steps in the plan which will provide modulation on the front of the building. The west side of the building has wall offsets to break down the wall planes into several sections, and vertical steps to higher wall panels at each end to add interest and terminate the wall plane. The highest wall will be approximately 35 ft. Rooftop HVAC equipment will be screened by parapet walls. The building will be painted with an off -white base color and accent colors for variety and visual interest. Wall sconces will provide accent lighting along the front sidewalk. The rear west wall will have bracket mounted downlights with glare reduction Tens or shields. Landscaping will consist of 15 ft. along Southcenter Parkway, and front, side and rear yard planting areas that meet or exceed the area ratio required for parking areas. Tenant signage will be wall mounted as required. There will also be one freestanding sign on a pylon with a face area of 75 s.f. per side. All signage will comply with the City Sign Code. The project complies with the City of Tukwila's Comprehensive Plan, Development Regulations and other applicable laws, policies and objectives based on meetings with City staff, review of Codes. Construction is expected to begin in the winter 2004 /spring 2005. (LMA #04 -030) NK -CD -1 /SC -3- RETAIL - BLDG -1. DES ATTACHMENT A 130 LAKESIDE • SUITE 250 • SEATTLE. WA • 96122 • (206) 325 -2553 • FAX: (2067 328 -0554 ARCHITECTURE • PLANNING • SPACE PLANNING • INTERIORS City of Tukwila Department of Community Development / 6300 Southcenter BI, Suite 100 / Tukwila, WA 98188 / (206)431 -3670 File Number: E04 -012 Applied: 06/08/2004 Issue Date: 08/11/2004 Status: ISSUED DETERMINATION OF NON- SIGNIFICANCE (DNS) Applicant: BRAD DECKER Lead Agency: City of Tukwila Description of Proposal: DEMOLITION OF EXISTING 9,300 SQUARE FOOT WINNERS RESTAURANT, REGRADE AND EXCAVATION OF APPROXIMATELY 3,000 CUBIC YARDS OF EARTH AND CONSTRUCTION OF NEW 20,200 SQUARE FOOT RETAIL BUILDING. Location of Proposal: Address: 17401 SOUTHCENTER PY hinor' Parcel Number: , 2623049120 Section/Township/Range: 26/23/04 The City has determined that the proposal does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21 c.030(2) (c). This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public on request. This DNS is issued under WAC 197 -11- 340(2). Comments must be submitted by ado /t/Ql15fOZ04i The lead agency will not act on this proposal for 14 days from the date below. 00 { doc: DNS Steve Lancaster, Responsible Official City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Blvd Tukwila, WA 98188 (206)431 -3670 /1 ate Any appeal shall be linked to a specific governmental action. The State Environmental Policy Act is not intended to create a cause of action unrelated to a specific governmental action. Appeals of environmental determinations shall be commenced within the time period to appeal the governmental action that is subject to environmental review. (RCW 43.21 C.075) ATTACHMENT B E04 -012 Printed: 08-11 -2004 • ETHAN ALLEN HOME INTERIORS Moira Carr Bradshaw Associate Planner Department of Community Development CITY OF TUKWILA 6300 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 Dear Moira: ETHAN ALLEN HOME INTERIORS An Authorize an Allen Retailer SOUTHCENTER 17333 Southcenter Parkway Tukwila, WA 98188 206 -575 -4366 1- 800 -518 -7647 Fax 206 -575 -0377 BELLEVUE /REDMOND 2209 N.E. Bel -Red Road Redmond, WA 98052 425 - 641 -3133 1 -877- 633 -8426 Fax 425-603-9082 LYNNWOOD 4029 Alderwood Mall Blvd. Lynnwood, WA 98036 425- 775 -1901 1- 888 - 205 -0310 Fax 425 - 712 -9831 July 27, 2004 This letter contains our written comments on the proposed 20,200 square foot retail building at 17401 Southcenter Parkway, at the current Winners Restaurant location. We are the retail store located directly North of the project on Southcenter Parkway. I have attached a copy of a site plan labeled SC -3 Retail Building, dated June 8, 2004. To simplify my comments, I have placed numbers on the site plan that correspond with the following comments and concerns: 1. and 2. The site plan calls for the removal of two existing lights. In my opinion it will be necessary to replace these under - performing lights with newer, taller, more powerful lights. We have experienced multiple break -ins to our employee and customer cars during the past year, and the more light on the surrounding property, the better. 3. This corner is very dark in the winter months, and I believe an additional light (as above) is needed. It is especially important that pedestrians crossing over from our property to the new retail stores can be easily seen by the cars turning in from Southcenter Parkway. 4. I believe some type of marked cross walk, and a stop sign is needed here to help pedestrians cross the common access drive. A speed bump might also help. 5. The current stop sign here is faded and needs to be painted or replaced. 6. I'm not sure who is responsible for the plantings in front of the 20 existing parking stalls. This area needs to be replanted or upgraded, and if the new retail shops are SERVICE CENTER 20120 72nd Avenue South Kent, WA 98032 253 - 872 -6552 1 -800- 859 -3085 Fax 253- 872 -6755 ATTACHMENT C responsible, I believe a sprinkler system should be in place so that the plantings remain healthy. 7. I want to make sure that any garbage bins, etc. are fully hidden. 8. My concern is that it will be easier for the new retail customers to park in front of our building and walk to the shops, rather than park in the existing 20 stalls or in back of the new retail stores. Parking near my number 1 light or in back of the proposed building is much farther away from the front doors of the new retail than parking at my number 8 parking area, and it's only human nature to take the shortest distance in most parking situations. I'm not sure what the answer is here and I'm very concerned that there won't be enough parking places for all customers —it's already hard to find parking during peak times. Currently Winners has multiple small and one large sign that says "Winners Parking" at my numbers 1, 6, and 2 locations, but Winners' customers rarely park in these spaces. Personally I am not in favor of having labeled parking spaces, as consumers tend to park where they want, no matter what a sign says. 9. It is virtually impossible to come out of our parking lot and make a left turn onto Southcenter Parkway today. With the increased traffic this just gets more difficult. One solution would be a traffic light, the other solution a "right turn only" sign. I have witnessed many traffic accidents at this location, and the increased traffic will make this worse. In general I am not opposed to the concept of new retail, but I want to ensure that pedestrians are safe and that there is enough parking at the right locations. Please put me on any future mailings as this project progresses. The Service Center address above is the best way to communicate with me, or at bcr@seattle- ethanallen.com Cordially, „A Brad Renner President Enclosure: Site Plan Copy: Nora Gierloff, Planning Supervisor Cior, 19 - Nu t ?, P.,ty ...et' • - • e••■• „een - • • ' i I . 4 . PUli Al :'"" • z • .•.; ........ JOANN FABRIC "5 BOOKSTORE ; _. ... 7771::•!:. e•tlil "Ikl . , \I : .....1 41 . . \ ...... - ;1 _ \\ 4 I • 1 ............. 01,41(1: 44 . S ZPAt 4 REIN‘ \ sNOPS •■•• ••••• Unarm. va t•••••• 11 • V • •1•17* 1 ...••••••• • 1!■ e A . • •-• k •: . I I .. ... .. • ! I I I I I 11 i . l\\ • IS 1 111111j! fl 1,', :, t) • -- , --r-- I - - --r - -• 1.-- -1 -4. .; -4_1 , 1 • .)i ';■n!iiii,;i .. . . 1 ••• SC-3 RE FAIL BUILDING SITE ?PC/: Ell DG. A;.!1 A: 011 SIR 1 01(111C,. 11 AILIACIli 1 PAH!!! if.: :1.8 LA;116M AI'L A: 1,142. SITE PLAN • / 4 01 :1111;',..! I 1 PM'. I Wi PAON IVA *3 H/ 3;41 (3 f•I' r$: '41%7 f.". i.rrr, V.' LI, SCE 4j:414 6 WI I 17 rt:(11 i,nrrm I( 111.••• • Ir,• • I 40 I PIW V - '•'•111/ .,(:()'it 11(;11 I!, of :WI/ - I (IOW 101A1 4 )4AelV.I LoveAtt_i WA •, le .1 • '1.4 it W 1 VICINITY MAP co c> LU Lu LLJ A 1 . JO-ANN stores inc® July 28, 2004 City of Tukwila Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, #100 Tukwila, WA 98188 Attn: Moira Carr Bradshaw Dear Moira Carr Bradshaw: Re: Notice of Application dated July 14 2004 17401 Southcenter Parkway Demolition of 9,300 square foot Winners Restaurant Please be advised that Jo -Ann Stores, Inc. opposes the application to demolish the 9,300 square foot building and to replace it with a multi -tenant retail building. Replacing the single -tenant building with a multi -tenant building that is double the size of the restaurant will create an aesthetics problem and create a parking problem for our customers. Based on the drawings that we have seen, it is our belief that the front of the Jo -Ann store will face the rear (i.e., trash area) of the proposed multi -tenant building. We have not determined exactly how close our store will be to the trash area of the multi - tenant building, but regardless of the distance, it will not be a pleasant view. Furthermore, we believe that it does not serve the interests of the community to have two retail buildings so close to each other. Additionally, the new multi -tenant building will create visibility issues for the public traveling on Southcenter Parkway. The new building will likely prevent our customers from seeing our store. Finally, the new multi -tenant building will eliminate the parking in front of our store and, force our customers to park on the side of the building, or to park on the side of the new building and cross the access road. We look forward to sharing additional information with the City at the public hearing. Please send me a notice of the time and place for the public hearing. Thank you. Sincerely, ` • I Robert D. Icsman Senior Legal Counsel RDI:bat cc: Kevin Kneeshaw, RVP John Stec Cpp�. oEvcc • Robert D. Icsman Senior Legal Counsel Direct Dial: (330) 463 -3409 Direct Fax: (330) 463 -6660 Email: roberticsman @jo- annstores.com ATTACHMENT D CC (Par 5555 Darrow Road, Hudson, Ohio 44236, Phone 330 -656 -2600, www.joann.com Corporate Office and Distribution center PARCEL B SEE "PARCEL 8 NOTE" - - • PARCEL B NOTE 0 50 100 200 PARCEL B IS FOR THE PURPOSE OF INGRESS, EGRESS AND PARKIN BENEFICIAL TO PARCEL. A AND OTHER PROPERTIES. ALL AREAS WITHIN PARCEL 8 WHICH ARE NOT OCCUPIED BY BUILDING, LANDSCAPING, OR OTHER IMPROVEMENTS, AND WHICH ARE DEVOTE TO PARKING, MAY BE UTILIZED FOR PARKING AS PER COVENANT RECORDED UNDER 8912290859 AND 8912290850, MODIFIED BY 9507210283. SCALE: 1''=100' ATTACHMENT E SC -3 RETAIL BUILDING Tukwila Urban Center Urban Design Review and Recommendations Review date August 13th, 2004 Prepared by Freedman Tung & Bottomley This memorandum is in response to the Site Plan submitted to the City of Tukwila for the SC -3 Retail Building proposed for 17401 Southcenter Parkway, Tukwila, Washington. As the City's consultants for the Tukwila Urban Center Sub -Area Plan, Freedman Tung & Bottomley is providing assistance to the City for this design review process to ensure that the site plan for the SC -3 Retail Building contributes toward the vision being developed for this area. The vision being developed within the Tukwila Urban Center Sub -Area Plan calls for an active retail and entertainment corridor along Southcenter Parkway, with strong connections between establishments and destinations. New development along the Parkway, including the SC -3 Retail Building proposed for the site, should reinforce this concept of an active corridor. The comments that follow recommend modifications to the site plan in the context of the overall vision for the Urban Center while still maintaining that we understand to be the developer's intent and requirements for redevelopment of the parcel. Issues of Current Site Plan 1. Poor Relationship with Existing Building The proposed site layout (Figure -1) creates a single "bar" building behind a bay of parking. While this maximizes efficiency on the site, it creates an awkward relationship with the existing building located to the south/west of the site, as follows: • The proposed building interrupts a view of part of the existing building, specifically Joann Fabric, from Southcenter Parkway. • The proposed building blocks visibility and access to Joann Fabric by placing its backside directly opposite its front door. • The pedestrian network of the proposed site layout does not connect the proposed building to the existing ones. In addition, the pedestrian network within the project is an uncomfortable one - the proposed pedestrian path along the building is only five or six feet wide, which is too narrow to provide pleasant walking environment for customers. 2. No Contribution to Street. Frontage In the proposed site layout, the proposed building is set back by about seventy-five feet from the front street, and a surface parking lot dominates the site edge along Southcenter Parkway. This layout creates three conditions: Freedman T u n,` ► Ba tetiml URSAN OESIGN 74 New Montgomery Street, Suite 300 San Francisco, California 94105 Tel: 415.291.9455 Fax: 415.291.9633 Email: info ftburbandesign.com JOANN FABRIC 30ROERS BOOKSTORE I Figure -1 : Proposed Site Layout ATTACHMENT F 1. Create a Good Relationship with Existing Building • It creates a lack of "edge" along the street. A distinct street wall is a key part of the vision for an active retail and entertainment corridor, and a building wall, rather than a parking lot, is necessary to define the street wall along the Southcenter Parkway. • It reduces the visibility of the retail located to the south/west of the site. This could encourage retailers to install freestanding and pole- mounted signs along Southcenter Parkway to supplement the lack of visibility to their storefronts, an image that is in keeping with the typical auto - oriented suburban strip, and not consistent with the vision for the Tukwila Urban Center. • It leaves the public sidewalk stranded between two auto - oriented environments, Southcenter Parkway and the parking lot. This results in a poor pedestrian environment along the public right of way where pedestrians are exposed to heavy fast - moving traffic and do not feel safe on the sidewalk. Recommendations In order to improve the issues caused by the proposed layout discussed above, reconfiguration of the proposed building is recommended. Given the constraints of parcel size and shape, however, possible reconfiguration altematives of the building are limited. The illustration (Figure -2) shows a suggested site layout that would address the issues noted above while maintaining what we understand to be the developer's primary requirements for redevelopment. The recommendations associated with this layout are: 2. Contribute to the Creation of Street Frontage The proposed I -shape layout removes visibility and access obstructions to Joann Fabric. This suggested L -shape layout establishes a seamless pedestrian network from the new building to existing ones, providing connectivity and enhancing the likelihood that shoppers will move from one establishment to another. In order to provide further incentive for pedestrian movement between stores, we would recommend widening the pedestrian path from the proposed five or six feet to eight feet at a minimum. Figure - 2: Diagram of site layout recommendation The suggested L -shape layout addresses the issues caused by poor street frontage. The major benefits are as follows; • The new building frontage along Southcenter Parkway marks the edge of the site and delineates the street wall, thereby contributing to the urban corridor environment envisioned by the Tukwila Urban Center Subarea Plan. • The new building frontage improves the visibility of both the new retail building and of the existing one located to its south/west. This creates an opportunity to add a comer tower at a corner of the new building along Southcenter Parkway, providing a highly visible location for signage that takes advantage of the gentle curve of the front street at the site. Such a corner tower would be just as visible, more recognizable, and more attractive than the usual freestanding signs along the street. • The new layout enables the building to face its storefront on Southcenter Parkway, thereby improving the comfortability of the public sidewalk while also contributing to pedestrian activity on the sidewalk. In addition, we would also recommend relocation of the existing sidewalk inward from Southcenter Parkway along the new building edge to allow for the provision of a landscaped planting strip between pedestrians and fast - moving traffic. Model No. PST Model No. ❑ PST -1 Optics Optics ❑ Type 1 (T1) ❑ Type!! (T ❑ Type III (T3) ❑ Type IV (T4) ❑ Type V (T5) C 0 us LISTED Listed for wet locations Wattage Wattage ❑ 400 (400) ❑ 350 (350) ❑ 320 (320) ❑ 250 (250) ❑ 200 (200) ❑ 175 (175) ❑ 150 (150) ❑ 100 (100) ❑ 70 (70) ❑ 50 (50) Source. Voltage Source Voltage ❑ MH ❑ 120 (M) ( ❑ PS ❑ 208 (P) ( ❑ HPS ❑ 240 (S) (3) ❑ 277 (4) ❑ 480 (5) ❑ M.Tap (6) Mounting ❑ Bolt -On Arm (BOA) ❑ Slip -Fit Arm (S FA) ❑ Knuckle Mount (KM).' ❑ Wall Mount (WM) The ParkingStar is a low profile, sharp cutoff, die -cast luminaire with rounded corners, designed with aesthetics, efficiency, and economics in mind. The ParkingStar is designed for sharp cut -off Tight distribution, utilizing a variety of horizontal lamp, high performance, multi- faceted or hydroformed segmented reflectors, that produce broad even levels of light. Mounting Finish Finish ❑ Bronze (BZ) ❑ Black (BK) White (WH) ❑ Green (GN) ❑ Gray (GY) ❑ Custom (CC) Options Options ❑ Photo Cell (PC) ❑ Quartz Restrike (OR) ❑ Light Shield (LS) ❑ Single In - Line Fuse (SF) ❑ Double In Fuse (DF) ATTACHMENT G I t hellfire deli ed nam1don 14.0.63 « *Mlw4n 'mimeo.* Oran Mud Nam. Nsr Maul Poles am 4a wined miff loves. please 'only ilwiromung ^4aeKm 1! sranrrcrmums p41pi1arAaigmnaMsimmetg163lLC .MgN1 aen Aawamn mums** wile. app4daMsion re Wain%UGr teepg writ aa TPA posgaeawrae iparomat Yeo«ie nearer de iqs r drge 14 specimen moaned Avon mss pia mice. 217 East 157th Street. Gardena. Califomia 90248 IfI SI QNAIRL LIGHTING Ph (310) 512 -6480 Fax (310) 512 -6486 • www.vislonalrelighting.com PST-11 ParkingStar Specifications Housing • Rugged, one piece die -cast, soft comer aluminum housing with 0.12 inch nominal wall thickness • All external hardware is rust resistant stainless steel. • All housings feature Visionaire's proprietary Quali- Guard® paint finish, available in an array of colors. Lens and Door Assembly • Die -cast extemal door frame is fully gasketed. A one piece extruded silicone gasket seals the door frame against the housing. • The Tens is a flat, tempered, clear safety glass. Optical System • The optical system is (CNC) cut and bent, providing precise and consistent, multi faceted 95 percent reflective systems for IES types 1, II, III, IV, and V distributions. Quali Guard® • The finish is a Quali- Guard® textured, chemically pretreated through a multiple stage washer, electrostatically applied, thermoset polyester powder coat finish, with a minimum of two ml. thickness. Finish is oven baked at a temperature of 400 degrees fahrenheit. to promote maximum adherences and finish hardness. All finishes are available in standard and custom colors. Bolt -On -Arm Detail r 0 -0 Adjustable Knuckle Mounting • An extruded aluminum, bolt -on -arm, with continuous channels, securing (2) 3/8 inch zinc running bolts with stain- less steel hardware is standard. Extruded aluminum arm is premounted to fixtures by Visionaire. • Optional slip -fit arm provides ease of installation. This is recommended for retrofitting existing poles. Electrical Assembly • Ballast is factory wired and tapped to voltage specifications. All ballasts are CWA or HPF regulating auto transformers, available in Metal Halide, Pulse Start, and High Pressure Sodium. Ballast is capable of providing consistent Tamp starting down to -20 degrees fahrenheit. Ballast is fastened to an easily accessible ballast tray for service convenience. • Socket is a glazed porcelain medium or mogul base with nickel plated contacts, rated at 5K and 600V. Options • Fixtures available with a variety of options, including photo cell, quartz restrike, light shield, and fusing. Please consult factory for custom options. Listing • ParkingStar is UL listed, suitable for damp and wet locations. All fixtures factory tested and prelamped prior to shipment. Slip -Fit Arm Detail c C us LISTED 217 East 157th Street, Gardena, California 90248 VISIONAIRE LIGHTING Ph (310) 512 -6480 Fax (310) 512 -6486 www.vlslonaire711ghting.com f® L /THON/A LIGHT /NG' FEATURES & SPECIFICATIONS INTENDED USE — Outdoor storage areas, warehouse and factory perim- eters and loading docks. CONSTRUCTION — Rugged, corrosion - resistant, die -cast aluminum. Corro- sion- resistant external hardware includes slotted hex -head fasteners. FINISH — Standard finish is 'electrostatically-applied, oven - cured, dark bronze (DDB) corrosion - resistant polyester powder paint. OPTICAL SYSTEM — Reflector is specular anodized aluminum. Refractor is prismatic borosilicate glass which is sealed and gasketed to inhibit the entrance of outside contaminants. ELECTRICAL SYSTEM — High power factor, constant- wattage autotrans- former. Ballast is copper -wound and 100% factory- tested. Meets ANSI standards and is UL listed. Electrical components are mounted in hinged front cover that includes primary and secondary electrical dis- connect. (For 50 hertz availability, consult factory). Porcelain, horizontally- oriented, medium base socket for 100.150W and mogul -base socket for 175W and above, with copper alloy, nickel - plated screw shell and center contact UL listed 1500W, 600V. INSTALLATION — Back housing is separated from front housing, eliminat- ing ballast weight and promoting easy handling. Top 3/4' threaded wir- ing access. Back access through removable 3/4' knockout. Feed -thru wiring can be achieved by using a condulet tee. Mount on any vertical surface. Not recommended in applications where a sprayed stream of water can come in direct contact with glass Tens. LISTING — UL Listed (standard). CSA or NOM Certified (see Options). UL listed suitable for wet locations. IP65 rated (250 watt and below) or IP54 rated (400 watt) in accordance with IEC Standard 529. ORDERING INFORMATION Choose the boldface catalog nomenclature that best suits your needs and write it on the appropriate line. Order accessories as separate catalog numbers (shipped separately). Outdoor TWH 'Series' TWH Wattage /lamp 100M'm 150Mx" 175M ZOOM' 250M 320M' 350M 400M" NOTES: 1 .Ndt available 480V & TB. 2 Islay be ordered with SCWA. 3 Must be ordered with SCWA. 4 Requires T- 15,Eoor8T28 reduced • jacket Tamp. 5 Not available in Canada. 6 Optional multi -tap ballast (1 208, 240, 277V). (120, 277, 347V in Canada). 7 Not available with multi -tap ballast. 8 Lamp not included. 9 Quartz Tamp wattage not to exceed ballast wattage rating. 10 Black finish only. 11 Photocell not included. 12 Requires modification. 13 Optional 5 -tap ballast (120,208,240,277,480V) 14 Not available with TBV. Voltage' 1 120 208 240 277 347 480 TB TBV" SF OF EC ORS CR CRT PE PER LPI L/LP LS TP FS WG VG SCWA CSA Shipped Installed In Fixture Single fuse (120, 277, 347V) Double fuse (208, 240, 480V) Emergency circuit Quartz restrike system"' Enhanced corrosion resistance Non -stick protective coating Photoelectric cell – button type" NEMA twist -lock receptacle" Lamp included as standard Less Tamp Lamp support (mogul socket only) Tamper proof latches Full shield Wireguard (shipped separately) Vandal guard (shipped separately) Super SCWA Pulse Start Ballast CSA Certified" Catalog Number Notes Type Options NOM NOM Certified (consult factory) Architectural Colors (optional) DNA Natural aluminum DBL Black DSB Steel blue DMB Medium bronze DGC Charcoal gray OTG Tennis green DBR Bright red DSS Sandstone DWH White Accessories Wall -Paks TWH METAL HALIDE 100W, 150W, 175W, 200W, 250W, 320W, 350W, 400W 8' to 25' Mounting Height: 15 -3/4" (40cm) Width: 16-1/4" (42.6cm) Depth: 8" (20.3cm) Weight: 26 -42 lbs. (12 -19 kg) Example: TWH 175M 120 LPI Order as separate catalog number. RK1 PEB1 Photoelectric control kit (120V, button type) RK1 PEBZ Photoelectric control kit (120V, button type) RK1 PEB3 Photoelectric control kit (347V, button type) PEI NEMA twist -lock photocontrol (120V/208V/240V) PE3 NEMA twist -lock photocontrol (347V) PE4 NEMA twist -lock photocontrol (480V) ATTACHMENT H 182.00' a 08sf UNE OF CANOPY ABOVE - TYP. BUFF TONE CONCRETE WALK WITH TOOLED JOINTS LS.I S 88'25'36 WALL PACK UGHT WALL PACK L 1 0 0000 272.38' 274'13' m «01 e 0283. JOANN FABRIC EXIST. PKG. - NQT A ART OF PROP BUT USEABLE BORDERS BOOKSTORE t ` t • tw in PACK UGHT t t Q z D 1 1 1 n .Z] rm Vf WALL PACK UC d00 WALL PACK LIGHT a WALL PACT( LIGHT COMMON ACCESS DRNE ESMT. EXIST. PKG. - OF BUT USEABLE 1S =380 1 svuRS 1 1 \ 1 1 )D EXIST. F.H. 1 \ ■ VICINITY MAP SC -3 RETAIL. BUILDING SITE AREA: 47,694sf BLDG. AREA: 20,039sf ON SITE PARKING: 80 LANDSCAPE AREA: 5,200sf S I T E P L A N 1" = 20' -0" 17401 SOUTHCENTER PARKWAY NOTES: • 1. PYLON SIGN NOT TO EXCEED 75sf PER SIDE. 2. HEIGHT OF PYLON SIGN NOT TO EXCEED 35' A.F.G. 3. SITE LIGHTING 6 WALL PACKS 15 175W EACH. = 1,050W 3 POLE MOUNTED SHOE BOX LIGHTS © 400W EACH = 1200W TOTAL WATTS = 2,250W 4. MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE WATTS © 0.20W /SF = 5,476W 1 I l \ LANDSCAPE CALCULATIONS: \ PARKING LS REQUIRED IN FRONT /SIDE \ PARKING LS SHOWN = 2,213sf 1 (NOT INCLUDING 1 PARKING LS REQUIRED IN REAR = 20 \ PARKING LS SHOWN = 565s.f. 1 1 11 4 PYLON SIGN A' 7 0 RECEIVED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 20' = 60 STALLS x 15s.f. = 900s.f. 15' FRONT YD. LANDSCAPING) STALLS x 10s.f. = 200s.f. Attachment I O o c O 0 0 m u L c 0 i c Y 0 a (—D z OD W -J a W sheet cc A1.0 N a F L O O R P L A N 121hk.: PRECAST CONC. -1' PILASTER FACE - TYP. ON EAST SIDE OF BLDG. 16' 8' 0' 8' 16' 16' -0• w ice' � ww 11112111111111 - .11515115111 ISIZIE CER ICI Imo•:- : 511111511=„1.-: AIafEMESSI IMO !fJ�i �DE4�N..::. ® MUM tia::s cu e _.� 1 iti®fa, IIZ01®I w« ni�s'� nava m mei 40' 16' 16' 8' a EAST W E S T 16' 8' 0' 8' 16' 16' NORTH ELEVATION 15' 8' 0' 8' 16' SOUTH ELEVATION 8' 16' RASED NR. TREWS E L E V A T I O N 1' • 16 FORMED CORNICE. PUNT CONCRETE PANELS W/ REVEALS. PAINT E L E V A T I O N METAL CANOPY W/ TIE RODS, PANT CLEAR INSUTATED CUSS IN ANODIZES ALUMINUM FRAMES CERAMIC TILE PATTERN 1' - 16 PRECAST PARAPET VP., PER 1/52.0 01 PRECAST CONC. PARAPET OR SHAPED FOAM PLASTIC MTL COPING 11' PRECAST CONC. PANEL O ' PARAPET DETAIL SCALE: 1 -1/2" = 1' -0" MIN �■ /t■t■ N■ttt■■ Milmi 1 t ■tt ■t■■ tt■tIH ! ■ i ■■■■ice■■ it•tt��■ RECYCLE d DUMPSTER ENCLOSURE 1' - 16 WALL PACK iCCHT FIXTURE METAL CANOPY. PAINT CONCRETE PANEL. PANT METAL COORS, PAINT GRADE 1" - 16' -0' WALL SCONCE EICNf FIXTURE - TYP. • V) 0 F- -J Lt_I CI- 0 0 J 0 Si ° 0 0 V W N w sheet A2.0 J ifitiassMii 22111111111111Ma al le N 1113 ME El tEra N a F L O O R P L A N 121hk.: PRECAST CONC. -1' PILASTER FACE - TYP. ON EAST SIDE OF BLDG. 16' 8' 0' 8' 16' 16' -0• w ice' � ww 11112111111111 - .11515115111 ISIZIE CER ICI Imo•:- : 511111511=„1.-: AIafEMESSI IMO !fJ�i �DE4�N..::. ® MUM tia::s cu e _.� 1 iti®fa, IIZ01®I w« ni�s'� nava m mei 40' 16' 16' 8' a EAST W E S T 16' 8' 0' 8' 16' 16' NORTH ELEVATION 15' 8' 0' 8' 16' SOUTH ELEVATION 8' 16' RASED NR. TREWS E L E V A T I O N 1' • 16 FORMED CORNICE. PUNT CONCRETE PANELS W/ REVEALS. PAINT E L E V A T I O N METAL CANOPY W/ TIE RODS, PANT CLEAR INSUTATED CUSS IN ANODIZES ALUMINUM FRAMES CERAMIC TILE PATTERN 1' - 16 PRECAST PARAPET VP., PER 1/52.0 01 PRECAST CONC. PARAPET OR SHAPED FOAM PLASTIC MTL COPING 11' PRECAST CONC. PANEL O ' PARAPET DETAIL SCALE: 1 -1/2" = 1' -0" MIN �■ /t■t■ N■ttt■■ Milmi 1 t ■tt ■t■■ tt■tIH ! ■ i ■■■■ice■■ it•tt��■ RECYCLE d DUMPSTER ENCLOSURE 1' - 16 WALL PACK iCCHT FIXTURE METAL CANOPY. PAINT CONCRETE PANEL. PANT METAL COORS, PAINT GRADE 1" - 16' -0' WALL SCONCE EICNf FIXTURE - TYP. • V) 0 F- -J Lt_I CI- 0 0 J 0 Si ° 0 0 V W N w sheet A2.0 LUMINAIRE SCHEDULE Symbol Lee Ory CatYOp Nailw DOVbb. lrnp Fla Lumens LIP Web ❑ N 1 1W.4T]VbbwYr. PST- JRFG 5EG 1r SO 01 DEEP ARM MOUNT war wmA SPECUIR SEGMENTED MAN LAMP WITH 17536V100P4O5O6131/250 P 000.7 eoomwooPS tr SQUARE CLEAR TEMPERED GLASS LENS (1) 100 WATT METAL HALDELAMP VEHTURiE 101$100 PST I75311T1 -MFG SEWN 10000 0.72 151 O • N 2 Vbbnre PST- 14014744510. 500 soar oar ARM 1r EE MOINTlNR W1121 5730000 SEGMENTED MAN LAMP WITH 179•5300P9/2506114750 P41320PL1000 9 1r SQUARE OlOR TEMPERED GRASS lEW (1)100 WATT METAL HAUDEIAMPVENIVRE 049000 PST175145T4 4170. 5E0 Na 40000 0.72 - 431 l= A S TRH 1793 Ta1P1 wALL. pm M �� MET HALVE x 0412110107* 11000 072 215 STATISTICS CAN 7me 71 1.10 Isle 0.070 N/A N/A NOTES 1. 25 Pole / Mounting McVA 2 C.Ic12.bd M Gm1ra Lava 3. 1101* Las F*Wr Appwe • F01. Values Wa Be Noler 73.4 byo4 * 011w00 b names la M Webb eJ 0Nbb 500601010.1 Who 0.55775755407.013 0n41 elMnw. and omAWed b ee wok. summary. Aaa.pb/ HO.ory 0001. Pala.. rod mMO.W ow Loan enloped F me Airs63.1.6 . ..cvgvee 1.05wr pwpuw TN bywl 1Pww• cur b5.MwpO..em ar Md.**dS.d hut a• SOS 1.10 andtkno may wry.e0 not NMWdb be • 7..'A0. al !On poolcarone. roar ep.p0me moored eNU[s Southwest View 3 Plan Prow ands I 24 ea e e1 51 34 03 1. 1.2 e2 ea 1 1 D1 0.. 104 41 03 60 0 OD 40 Designer Willie Baxter Date Jul 30 2004 Scale 1' =25' Drawing No. W 117 -04-r 1 of 1 O 10 20 l u..oh - TO S. LEGAL DESCRIPTION A PORTCN OF THE SW. 1/4 OF SECTION 26. TONNSHP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST. W.M., N KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS SURVEY NOTES 40 SURVEY BY EMERALD LAND SURVEYING CONTOUR INTERVAL - 2 FOOT VERTICAL DATUM - NAVE 66 BENCH MARK: "Too SE Boll of Bose of Light Standard - ROS 22 -140, Eler. 24.02. • . ` - 2765 SW 14 64 12' if S 14 40 12' 1 . E 11 50 12• ■ 1 R 36' _E. 3E 203' e• , E Sn 11157 3' • BEGINNING AT THE SOUTH 1/4 CORNER O SAW SECTION 26: THENCE N 8745'57 • ALONG THE SECTION UNE A DISTANCE OF 481.05 FEET TO THE NEST MARGIN OF SOUTHCENTER P ARKWAY THENCE N 1159'33 M ALONG SAID MARGIN A DISTANCE OF 72143 FEET TO A BOUNDARY WITH A TRACT CONVEYED BY DEED RECORDED UNDER RECORDNVG NO. 6912290639 AND THE TRUE PONT OF BEGINNING; THENCE CONTINUNG N 1159'33' W ALONG SAID NEST MARGIN OF SCUTICENTER PARKWAY A DISTANCE OF 105.15 FEET TO A PONT OF A CURVE: THENCE ALONG SAIO CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAYING A RADIUS OF 991.37 FEET TROUQIT A CENTRAL ANGLE CIF 0453'59', AN ARC DISTANCE OF 64.78 FEET. TO THE SOUTH BOUNDARY Cf A CDMMOI DRIVEWAY EASEMENT (EASEMENT N0. 1 AS RESERVED N DEED RECORDED UNDER RECORDING N0. 8912290659;: THENCE LEAVING SAID NEST MAKIN Of SOUTHCENTER PARKWAY, 5 851211" W A DISTANCE Cf 152.00 FEET; THENCE S 7759'33' E A DISTANCE OF 261.67 FEET; THENCE 5 6625'36' E A DISTANCE OF 115.17 FEET; THENCE N 1175559'33' W A DISTANCE OF 91.74 FEET; THENCE S 6625'36' E A DISTANCE OF 66.95 FEET TO THE WEST MARGIN Cf SCIUTHCLNTER PARKWAY 1110 THE POINT OF BEGINNING. TOGETHER VATH THAT PORTION OF THE SE 1/4 OF THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 26. TONNSHIP 23 NORM RANGE 4 EAST, M.M. IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE SE CORNER OF THE SE 1/4 OF THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 26; THENCE N Er45'57• W AU3NG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SE 1/4 OF THE SW 1/4 A DISTANCE Of 461.03 FEET, TO THE REST MARGIN OF SOUTHCENTER PARKWAY AS ESTABUSHED IN KING COUNTY RECORDING NO.'S 6343962, 6343863. 6343885, 6343867 AND 6343868: THENCE N 11' 59'13' W ALONG SAO NEST MARGIN A DISTANCE Off 830.56 FEET: THENCE CONTwNNG ALONG SAID NEST MARGIN CAI A CURVE TO THE RIGHT. HAVING A RADIUS Cf 991.37 FEET. AN NICE DISTANCE OF 124.78. THROUG HT A CENTRAL ANQE CF 0772'41" TO THE TRUE PONT OF BEGINNING; THENCE S 66' 40103" W A DISTANCE OF 274.13 FEET; THENCE N 0198'35' E A DISTANCE OF 30.64 FEET; THENCE S 6651'25' E A DISTANCE OF 272.38 FEET TO SAID WEST MARGIN Cf SOUTHCENTER PARKWAY; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG SAID WEST MARGIN ALONG A CURVE TO THE LEFT, THE CENTER Cf 11HIC11 BEARS N 85'4816' E. HAVING A RADIUS OF 991.37 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 00'32'76' TO THE TRUE PONT Cf BEGINNING. x. E 1 31. ,6' -3 7 44.07• 'cdi 539.i�6� - AFr+ 770772C9t4 G$' ---- --- - 1 TYP, EASY' SIDE N, 8 EOIe.•.n1 u• P 0 D Pet E, S P F FN 3507210262 i 1 2.. 2a ' 5 2606 12' SE as 12' 15.S. 36 '///// -••• • • S 88'51'25' E S 66'40'03" VI ` 1 1 ..3433. 272.35' 274.13' COMMON ACCESS DRIVE 4 9.07' 1 E 23 IE 2..4 A 25.13 12' E 25.03 12" 'N 23.49 r'a I I 1 /GE 8 i:e 1 / 21 6l C1 -. /' Stu 1624 . 6• ' 19• 7 ..• '' tl0 36 _•'OKRRpW ROUTE 1,,, /24.. EIIS �I g T!9( CXST) / AI r V OPENING IN i „ CURB (TRENCH - 'OVERFLOW) 1 T •, GE 30 E CB w 21.13 G 674 ■6 33 `TOE OF NEW CURB SHALL MATCH COST GRADE SW1/4, SEC 26, TWP 23N, RGE 4E 1 14 15.2/ *S E S 16 3 4' E 171 3e' ( 54 12 67 d ^ 1 1 9, 16.11 C V ANT Cf A• GRADING 3 S' 19' I91 12' 31 38' .9 ' 3 ; 0 l 6.4' A vorl A ■ FILL: 20 CY CUT: 3058 CY SI ST l 'MM IT 1 51 41 44 ap � ST ( , 1 _S mr42 n Iles, ,_ 1 _ I 'C - 1 _ 37 6' lrTl! ,•• 01 /25 'NTH 1' OPENINGS. 10' O.C. PARKING LOT EARTHWORK QUANTITIES: I.S I' MIN HIS E XST GRADE? J I - ` -3H:1 V RYA' TO 3/4' WASHED ROCK '6' PERF PVC 314:IV 8/4/04 REVISED ROCK TRENCH A OUANTTES ARC APPROXIMATE. CONTRACTOR IS REOI RED TO PERFORM ALL WORK NECESSARY TO BRING STE TO GRADES AS 51HOIW4 ON DRS PLAN A110 TO MEET FIELD CONgTICNS DATE: 6/2/04 SCALE: I".20' r KL mt 1 1l� ,5 . i • I PER NEW SITE PLAN VICINITY MAP SC -3 RETAIL BUILDING 17401 SOUTHCENTER 2 411 1 DES D:0 OWN 21< GRADING PLAN DECKER CEVELOPUE4' dl CCNSTRLCT ON. INC 117 E LOUISA ST. 4230 \SEATTLE. 1/A 95102 PI.CNE:2C8 - -4354 I EMPIRES S / "1 SITE DEVELOP¢NT SERVICES 3102011TH ST SE BOTHELL, WA 98012 (425)4819687 (425)485.7199 (FAX) lof4 1 20 0 10 20 t 16711 - 70 fl •0 i f 4 e!�� Pr •6' 559« 2 Run 7 . a E W1 • 601 �E M 1 466 1 2' TIE E:•7 C 1 C3 we 7 -'6 •', 2 147( 20.371.6' 'E `•E 2; 37 6' TIE SA • 57 0' ■ ;'.PLACE FILTER X1';1 1 q. c. 7 \ 4 5 88'31'25' C 5 86 03' 2.E . / ran- 0115fi' ma E 2 62 OI ]6' - ; J E •1474 <0 7 50 ' CD Pe �AF9 7'rOJI _]619 - � _ r ��11C4;4 'SU5EO 1 , /1 -.— No 6971 Eofement o I I oee E. 0A F9 9507210252 I M1o CB 29 • 1 4' 8 CEe a6 IC 0 5 31 1 12 IC - 5E 56 66 " 1 25 3fi 1 • SILT FENCE. CLEARANG,UW T 272.39' 274.13' c4 A/ 11 11 AFN S307 2 ;�! 1 E3 PLACE C i4,CL. t..2_ FILTER 1 EE 30 49 N E w 2519 IT E 3 2509 '2' I 79 23..9 SW' /4, SEC 26, TWP 23N, RGE 4E 6i cP I I 1 •- Pc 1n6 T„e P<I 1 1 ee9 nn;n7 • IA al vA • 7 \ ' PLACE C8 FILTER 1 \'; I CB �< 1 2E 4 22 9a C 7 5' y EWA 1326 36' C,I e1 'E W 21. 8'9 •6 53 CO ./ 5<I•8 .4 /CE 2567 :6 N 10.27 45' TIE 5 , 6 37 4C IC W 17.17 36' IC 55 1967 6' 9714 6. T FENCE EN PA (CLEARING MIT) cc 26 811 E 5 2351 Ia' E 9 2391 1. OTV 72.11 `E ACE co fILTER 6262. li= 1 �1 \ ■ SILT FENCE ON P/L (CLEARING LIMIT) T 3 P.., of Poo A ( ( ( ( CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE: I. ARRANGE AND ATTEND PRECENSTRUCDON MEETING WITH CITY CF 7100•14 'NSPECTC R. 2. RAC CLEANING 1541TS. 3 INSTALL CONSTRUC..ON ENTRANCE. (NOT USED) 4. CLEAN OUT C6'S A INSTALL TESL CO FILTERS AN0 CLEAR AREA OF PRCPCSED *ORR. 5. IN5'A•1. 5E216E51 CCNTRCI. 5T5TEM5. AS ST'EO -TIED. 4. PERFORM GRADING, INSTALL •JTIUTIES. & 19STA,.I PAVEVENT. 7. SEED 07 SURFACE DIS157303 AREAS. 7. CLEAN OUT STORM DRAIN 5YS -67. 9. REMOVE SED'AENT CONTROL MEASURES AFTER SITE HAS 8EER 348I1.1ZED AN0 THE 0TY'S INSPECTOR 1.45 APPROVED THE REMOVAL SITE DEVELOPNEtrT SER2VICF5 310 206714 ST SE 60171£11, WA 96012 (425) 461-9667 (4251405-7199 (FA2() ]ATE: 6/2/04 SC -3 RETAIL BUILDING SCALD: 1' -70' 17401 SOU THCENTER POP' CEO: OCD 0'AN'. J4 TESC PLAN DECKER DEVELO 9 OC■OOSI.CT ON. IN: 117 E LOJ15A ST. 4230 N WA 96102 PHONE' 705- 540.49'0 I EXPIRES 5114473 2of4 0 10 20 1 Inch ••• 20 11. 43 -'-:•;"." 600113-.?•J 2!"2- 1 C SW :a 80 ,2•• •-• , IF S 14 60 IV 'E 1. tc 1 1 RELOCATED / .. E..26.11(36,4w) / RE.SE TL. 1(.20.01(36N) /. RtJAOTt j (CCNN ALL OTHER CPER TA IND' ...; I SO's SERA") BY THIS CEI) / LOC EXST 1 "... RR CT METER NTH DOC B PVC Root - DRAIN 0 0.5% 79 6. • • 1 A 29 ..•6 99 2506 IT' St 2666 IT 2535 NEW BUILDING TO FIRE SPRINKLER MAIN IN 0.00 No 91.321 C81.2•111.5 es P. E 01..11 D , 310 • 8 PVC ROOF DRAIN • 0.5X •'///./// •/..".//// .///////,•// • ,/:///// *DM 8 59 taro& ‘, Xs sr t,e a 20, 9 e .71.1e a •15 CS :9 CA 25 67 • .F. 9 4.2' •5 S '637 •15• 11: 1T 17 36' 1C SW 6976 ' • 1( 052 :6 17 1 • 0 ' V NEW 36nE■EXST &!o , 1 OPENINGS IN CURE. 10 0.C. B PERE PVC ROCK TRENCH SLOPE VAJRIES. SEE SECTION A \ \ -,.............. 1 1 4.)....... \ 22LF 30 0 ... 1 NA 20.3; \ 2,6. 6 FE' 23 37 TO F SS \ 21 57 1 3' ■ 777 I 1 A 1 E 25..io \ •20 - A 0 25 24 I srmIzs .3a • I CONN NEW BLDG SEWER TO EXST SIX SEWER. VERIFY SIZE AND CCNENTION H OTYS INS.ECTCR S 885125 S 56'4003 W • / Ur/(TYPE 2-84) w/ OFFSET CHANNEL TE.21.0(SOUO LID) 1E.19.66(NJ. 381 „ . 272 38' 27 COMMON ACC /;;.. 10 ,16106 116010_,15..""....... 11101 ■ 11.11L.11==roilm.,_. • E 23 3i 581 • 1.42x Ill dtP - g"Tm 19 a, • ' REMOVE Exs ,..., 30 - Csap PLACE EXST CB NTH ''',;, ....-- CO NEW LIv(TYPE .2- BAnyir/, '.,, L.-....:Aile% ......_...,-• N 296 12 C •:9 12' 7 . 23'7 CA P2r. a ri (TYPE 2- }C. 2E91(61 54 1: 11 E; : M AIL 1: :7) tiiCf , 74 Is .)e 11 1 \ 11 3 .25.8(SOUO UD) • tE.18.20(ALL) , • SO LOCATION ESTIMATED. VERIFY PRIOR TO CONSTR A NOTIFY INSPECTOR IF NOT AS SHOWN SW1/4, SEC 26, TWP 23N, RGE 4E 36' 'PVC -23.22(000) PIT STCRuCT_P TOR/1 TE..24.5(50LI0 LID) 20 12(114) E••20.04SOuT) 16IJ B CPEP 0 0.5X FIRE SPRINKLER MAIN. SIZE TO BE DETERMINED CONN T £051 CO BEM 6* PVC 1.37.7 Fe.. ,,,t of / asq Po•nt A ■ STC 454i Preens( Concrete Stormceptoe (4301.5 G.Zun ('Apswity) NTS DATE: 5/2/04 SCALE; 1-20' lees 1. The Use O( Raba Ccorealon is Recenwrendee al The Inlet /Id OAet Where Appecabe. 2 The Come Shied be Peekoned OAK The hid Clop Pipe end The Vont Pew. 2. The Stxrrowtor System ie probe by one ct rue d the ticw'ne U.S. Pateres: /4965145, *406331. 157257E0, 05753115. 05349131. STORMCEPTOR 450i ( 5/4/04 REVISED PER NEW VIE PLAN SC-3 RETAIL BUILDING 17401 SOL THCCI7 TER PK79 00S 000 0 AN: DECKER DEVELO & CCNS'RLCT 5,0 11 E LO.:ISA ST. A23C SEA TILE. WA 95 I C2 °S-ONE: 20E -.1 54 I zmPREs SITE OEVEIPPMENT SERVICES 310 203111 ST SOTMEll, WA 96012 (425) 4914047 (425)4854199 (FAX) DRAINAGE PLAN 3 of 4 LocaVOns shown For eldetlng udlkfes an approKlmate. Prior to etartIng condrucVon, contact ONR -CALL (1- 000-434 -/1111 for utility locations. 1. Project Man.gar 2. Design 6ngkleer 3. Owner. 4. Omer: BRAD DEC1tER DON EU1 1. No ily the Lets* Inspector at 206.433 -0179 at lead 413 haura before darting project site work. 2. Rawest it Pubic Worst wgty matrecdon Ke sat 24 Nan in advance by rung 206 - 433-0179. 3. Tha Convector awma solo nrporoluNRy for worior Wry, and damage to structure. and Improv,merb resulting from contraction operations. 4. The Contractor Mail have the permit(s) and con:Mon/, tine appfov.d plaro, and a anent Copy of Qty of Tuinvtle InAfseructura Design and Conrtvaran Standards available at the Job site. 5. All wont deg oonhrm to thON approved drawings. Any clangu from the approved plane require pre- approval from the owner, to engineer, and the qty of Tukwila. 6. All methode and materiels Mao moot City of Tukwila Innesbutnme Neap and Construe::an Standards, untrue otherwise approved by the Public Worth Director. 7. Contractor shalt maintern ■ current set of record drawIn9a omen,. • 6. Contractor .halt provide record drawings prior to project find approval. 9. Contractor Mall provide trw lc control and Meet maintenance plan for Public Wartrs approval before implementation. 10. AR surveying for ptaat ?.dudes Man be done under the direction of a Washington 4a1S.d tend surveyor. Vertical datum 'hag be NAVD 1966. Horizontal datum Mall be T4A0 63/91. For projects whin a Rood control zone, the Prm+Rtae shag provide conversion CeicUlatiae CO NOVO 1929. 11. The Convector MM replan, or relocate all stone damaged or removed dust to cenMw:don. 1, The erosion prevention and sediment control (ESC) measures on the approved plans are minimum ragulrernans. 2. Defrn btelnnlno emr rnnetnagn adlrea. establish the during limb end Metal construction enb.ne.. 3. bthlra im env ,d dllm tan _ ..e_ all downamum eu.lon prevMM0n and ' seamen control Reasons MSC) must be nna vctad and In operation.• Tristan and maintain all ESC measures according to the ESC plan. • ESC mesexres, including all perimeter controls, Mat remain In piece until Sint Ole oonatrudtton Y cpnoleted and permanent stabilization Is .stabilised. Prom May 1 through flealle br 30, provide temporary end permanent cover measures to protect dYV/rbed arm that will rertekn unwanted for seven days or more. 6. from October 1 through April 30, provide temporary and permanent cover meeaures to protect disturbed arias mat will rvn.h unwonted for two doge or nom In *dation to cove measures, On Contractor Was: 1 Protect sadaMs and steep nut and OR elope. r unworted foe more than 12 hares. . Stockpile, on At enough cover motorists to coven as dlwrbed areas. 7. By October It, seed all areas that will remain unworked during the sat Meson (October t through April 30). Mulch all seeded areas. 1 4. S, JTrll TTY NOTES • 1. IOU tnndl ucavetlon op.ntlai, shell most or exceed .1 app6abirt shoring lewd 1 for trends. aver 4-feet deep. At trends safety eyat ere shoe moot W 19HA rpuWments. 2. Power. cable, fiber .oats, and OeMOhone IPe. shall be In K trench wWr a S' minimum horizontal separation from other underground utatles. 3. Adjust all manholes catch bruins end valid. In pubic righteciwry or esooment agar asphalt paving. I3. Al methods end meanie' shag meet Qty of TukwN Imtestrudu a Dean and Construcdon Standards, end the outwit ling Court). Surfam Wafar Deign Manual, whim otherwise approved. 2. Mark all storm drain In4b with `Dump No Waaes and Dither `Drains to 5treama "Drains to Wetlands' or`O e1M Groundwater', to Groun as applicable. 3. Driveway divas shall be of suredant length to provide a mkunmum 3:1 slope from the .doe of the driveway to the bottom of the dtn'iu Culverts nail have beveid nd sasfone That match the skis slop. 4. for single runny msaucvon provide ona of the t000wing note: steel. nerdy noteeecel eeaes d as lea award by e1be.PM moat wawa. dorraaut heltrwan eeewa to Ow some/ a adMllsn. CA. Single tansy reacenaa am sided en W Memel by aludMadn fart provide duoruoaM drpanion Metens woven, at the ap.rwed 00 *, Ol t morel . P.,W reed stub eu t an neal n lots eo lots aortal by a ae.nved Od must morel* ion. N Ru?t aanrhettlarrrmg to d. aarvr subdivision. I. Coordhat 7nat atD+tt leaden WAR td. lotus Ireoetpn novae a wire or other detection Owka and mart[ stub-out ldotbn will 1 Shot 2 rake, burial 4-foot and labeled ',WRY or •dnen'. 1 wba Yrbil mOonte Pepe, weer aarki Arm, and mean. The Coy at TIkwW inn owl me moor.. 1. heron teat as weber mMna and appurtenance.. S. Puan and diPnhp new, deaned, Of teMked war mesa. 4. Inetall rraelned pints et el beds, WO, and attar //action Nwpet. S. o weer malt that nave a blow - off e..emdy I law port end an elf ViLMw reef .rive et NO point of main. I. Install ore hydrant l'embf as R Fends phone and an mat pal await outlet to st 15• ato.. as Mpka erode. The eeev,Wy awl have a dear one around hydrant of o lent 31' win the pumper port doll lea grew or ere moss. 7. The Instal/or of a Ire in. twine" pc/vandal awe. mgalrd olade the bulldlry and undenpo nd. shall have a Level Ill menthol d donpebnty or e Level U rwinecmr'a anplweg of ameetewy. tr ee Meow M Wawa Mart tho badtnow prwwsM ddpner, than the Rotator roux sump, alp., and date One puns. In addition as ow dasignah ramp, algnet re, and dap. 1. AR mimeos and rnounda small meet ay .Dames InAerevewn podia and CaobxtIMT Spndr* W W atnaMra apurevad• 2. The Contractor anal mark One ad of me lido sewer, brld, the money ISO. .rah .4 foot treasure sunad 2 s 4, burl In td. grated 4 hat. The boded INSTALL DRIVEWAY CULVERT IF THERE IS A ROADSIDE DITCH PRESENT. AS PER KING COUNTY ROAD STANDARDS Ours N FIVER fount SNA,i as SPIRED A POSTS. u5E STAPLES. wet MACS. CR EOwvotENI IC ATIACM FASAIC -0 POSTS 4• -6' QUARRY SPALIS CEOTE %TILE IV MAR POST SPAONC MAY K INCREASED TD e' s SORE 500000 is USED ACT: ruin FARR FENCES SNAIL It nITALLEO KONG :ONIGUR nwENE0ER POS5K.E 12' MIN. THICKNESS SILT FENCE NTS x 1 TR AI.AS1 r1 , r Cc STM.5AVtint d p SInCOGM rndv,c l.403 FILTER ruses --� MINAAW 1 iREVON 5400 moot yin, 94un SOIL a _H' - WASKO GRAM. r.. cocci POSTS. VW. FENCE POSTS. REdAR. OR ED,A'ALENl R ra 15 MIN. CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE NTS SW1/4, SEC 26, TWP 23N, RGE 4E PROVIDE FULL WIDTH OF INGRESS /EGRESS AREA I. 2 3 SOLID WALLS E . FILTER MEDIA FOR DEWATERING MAINrNANCF ITANnAR0 CATCH BASIN CRATE OVERFLOW 1 POROUS BOTTOM INSTALL IN ALL CATCH BASINS ALCNC FRONTAGE AND DOWNSTREAM OF SITE. IN$TA,1 If, NOW CATCH DASIVS UNTIL SITE IS STABLIZED. NOTE: TNIS DETAIL IS ONLY SCHEMATIC. ANY INSERT IS ALLOWED THAT HAS A MIN. 0.5 C.F. Of STORAGE. THE MEANS TO DEwATER THE STORED SEDIMENT. AN OVERFLOW. AND CAN BE EASILY MAINTAINED. ANY ACCUMULATED SEDIMENT ON OR AROUND 'HE FIL FABRIC PROTECTION SHALL SE REMOVED 'MMEDIATELY. SEDIMENT SHALL NOT BE REMOvEO rAEI WATER, ANC AL_ SEDIMENT MUS' BE C15P7_'EU OF AS rILL CN SITE CR HAULED OFF SITE. ANY SEDIMENT IN THE CATCH BASIN INSERT SHALL BE REMOVED WEN THE SECIMENT HAS FILLED CNE -THIRD OF THE AVAILABLE STORAGE. 'HE FILAR UEDIA FOR -HE INSERT SHALL BE CLEANED 09 REPLACED AT LEAST MONTHLY. REOULAR MAINTENANCE 'S CRITICAL FOR BOTH FORMS Or CATCH BASN PROTECTION. UNLIKE MAW' FCRMS OF PROTECTION THE FAIL GRADUALLY, CATCH BASH PROTECTON W/LL 'AIL SUCOENLY AND COMPLETELY - F NCT MAINTAINED PROP_RLY. CATCH BASIN FILTER NTS SITE OK`IELOPlENT SERVICES 310 106TH ST SE BOTHELL, WA 98012 (4251 481-687 (425)485 (FAX) SC -3 RETAIL BUILDING 1740' SCUT- 4CENTER FKWY• JA TE: 4/7/04 CES CCD SCALE. AS NOTED C'MN: DCO NOTES & DETAILS CCN TACT: BFAU t;ECO.Fi - - - - - - - - - -- - - 117 E OUISA 3'. #2_7 - SEATTLE. WA 98102 PHONE 2CE -T45 -'964 4 of 4 LocaVOns shown For eldetlng udlkfes an approKlmate. Prior to etartIng condrucVon, contact ONR -CALL (1- 000-434 -/1111 for utility locations. 1. Project Man.gar 2. Design 6ngkleer 3. Owner. 4. Omer: BRAD DEC1tER DON EU1 1. No ily the Lets* Inspector at 206.433 -0179 at lead 413 haura before darting project site work. 2. Rawest it Pubic Worst wgty matrecdon Ke sat 24 Nan in advance by rung 206 - 433-0179. 3. Tha Convector awma solo nrporoluNRy for worior Wry, and damage to structure. and Improv,merb resulting from contraction operations. 4. The Contractor Mail have the permit(s) and con:Mon/, tine appfov.d plaro, and a anent Copy of Qty of Tuinvtle InAfseructura Design and Conrtvaran Standards available at the Job site. 5. All wont deg oonhrm to thON approved drawings. Any clangu from the approved plane require pre- approval from the owner, to engineer, and the qty of Tukwila. 6. All methode and materiels Mao moot City of Tukwila Innesbutnme Neap and Construe::an Standards, untrue otherwise approved by the Public Worth Director. 7. Contractor shalt maintern ■ current set of record drawIn9a omen,. • 6. Contractor .halt provide record drawings prior to project find approval. 9. Contractor Mall provide trw lc control and Meet maintenance plan for Public Wartrs approval before implementation. 10. AR surveying for ptaat ?.dudes Man be done under the direction of a Washington 4a1S.d tend surveyor. Vertical datum 'hag be NAVD 1966. Horizontal datum Mall be T4A0 63/91. For projects whin a Rood control zone, the Prm+Rtae shag provide conversion CeicUlatiae CO NOVO 1929. 11. The Convector MM replan, or relocate all stone damaged or removed dust to cenMw:don. 1, The erosion prevention and sediment control (ESC) measures on the approved plans are minimum ragulrernans. 2. Defrn btelnnlno emr rnnetnagn adlrea. establish the during limb end Metal construction enb.ne.. 3. bthlra im env ,d dllm tan _ ..e_ all downamum eu.lon prevMM0n and ' seamen control Reasons MSC) must be nna vctad and In operation.• Tristan and maintain all ESC measures according to the ESC plan. • ESC mesexres, including all perimeter controls, Mat remain In piece until Sint Ole oonatrudtton Y cpnoleted and permanent stabilization Is .stabilised. Prom May 1 through flealle br 30, provide temporary end permanent cover measures to protect dYV/rbed arm that will rertekn unwanted for seven days or more. 6. from October 1 through April 30, provide temporary and permanent cover meeaures to protect disturbed arias mat will rvn.h unwonted for two doge or nom In *dation to cove measures, On Contractor Was: 1 Protect sadaMs and steep nut and OR elope. r unworted foe more than 12 hares. . Stockpile, on At enough cover motorists to coven as dlwrbed areas. 7. By October It, seed all areas that will remain unworked during the sat Meson (October t through April 30). Mulch all seeded areas. 1 4. S, JTrll TTY NOTES • 1. IOU tnndl ucavetlon op.ntlai, shell most or exceed .1 app6abirt shoring lewd 1 for trends. aver 4-feet deep. At trends safety eyat ere shoe moot W 19HA rpuWments. 2. Power. cable, fiber .oats, and OeMOhone IPe. shall be In K trench wWr a S' minimum horizontal separation from other underground utatles. 3. Adjust all manholes catch bruins end valid. In pubic righteciwry or esooment agar asphalt paving. I3. Al methods end meanie' shag meet Qty of TukwN Imtestrudu a Dean and Construcdon Standards, end the outwit ling Court). Surfam Wafar Deign Manual, whim otherwise approved. 2. Mark all storm drain In4b with `Dump No Waaes and Dither `Drains to 5treama "Drains to Wetlands' or`O e1M Groundwater', to Groun as applicable. 3. Driveway divas shall be of suredant length to provide a mkunmum 3:1 slope from the .doe of the driveway to the bottom of the dtn'iu Culverts nail have beveid nd sasfone That match the skis slop. 4. for single runny msaucvon provide ona of the t000wing note: steel. nerdy noteeecel eeaes d as lea award by e1be.PM moat wawa. dorraaut heltrwan eeewa to Ow some/ a adMllsn. CA. Single tansy reacenaa am sided en W Memel by aludMadn fart provide duoruoaM drpanion Metens woven, at the ap.rwed 00 *, Ol t morel . P.,W reed stub eu t an neal n lots eo lots aortal by a ae.nved Od must morel* ion. N Ru?t aanrhettlarrrmg to d. aarvr subdivision. I. Coordhat 7nat atD+tt leaden WAR td. lotus Ireoetpn novae a wire or other detection Owka and mart[ stub-out ldotbn will 1 Shot 2 rake, burial 4-foot and labeled ',WRY or •dnen'. 1 wba Yrbil mOonte Pepe, weer aarki Arm, and mean. The Coy at TIkwW inn owl me moor.. 1. heron teat as weber mMna and appurtenance.. S. Puan and diPnhp new, deaned, Of teMked war mesa. 4. Inetall rraelned pints et el beds, WO, and attar //action Nwpet. S. o weer malt that nave a blow - off e..emdy I law port end an elf ViLMw reef .rive et NO point of main. I. Install ore hydrant l'embf as R Fends phone and an mat pal await outlet to st 15• ato.. as Mpka erode. The eeev,Wy awl have a dear one around hydrant of o lent 31' win the pumper port doll lea grew or ere moss. 7. The Instal/or of a Ire in. twine" pc/vandal awe. mgalrd olade the bulldlry and undenpo nd. shall have a Level Ill menthol d donpebnty or e Level U rwinecmr'a anplweg of ameetewy. tr ee Meow M Wawa Mart tho badtnow prwwsM ddpner, than the Rotator roux sump, alp., and date One puns. In addition as ow dasignah ramp, algnet re, and dap. 1. AR mimeos and rnounda small meet ay .Dames InAerevewn podia and CaobxtIMT Spndr* W W atnaMra apurevad• 2. The Contractor anal mark One ad of me lido sewer, brld, the money ISO. .rah .4 foot treasure sunad 2 s 4, burl In td. grated 4 hat. The boded INSTALL DRIVEWAY CULVERT IF THERE IS A ROADSIDE DITCH PRESENT. AS PER KING COUNTY ROAD STANDARDS Ours N FIVER fount SNA,i as SPIRED A POSTS. u5E STAPLES. wet MACS. CR EOwvotENI IC ATIACM FASAIC -0 POSTS 4• -6' QUARRY SPALIS CEOTE %TILE IV MAR POST SPAONC MAY K INCREASED TD e' s SORE 500000 is USED ACT: ruin FARR FENCES SNAIL It nITALLEO KONG :ONIGUR nwENE0ER POS5K.E 12' MIN. THICKNESS SILT FENCE NTS x 1 TR AI.AS1 r1 , r Cc STM.5AVtint d p SInCOGM rndv,c l.403 FILTER ruses --� MINAAW 1 iREVON 5400 moot yin, 94un SOIL a _H' - WASKO GRAM. r.. cocci POSTS. VW. FENCE POSTS. REdAR. OR ED,A'ALENl R ra 15 MIN. CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE NTS SW1/4, SEC 26, TWP 23N, RGE 4E PROVIDE FULL WIDTH OF INGRESS /EGRESS AREA I. 2 3 SOLID WALLS E . FILTER MEDIA FOR DEWATERING MAINrNANCF ITANnAR0 CATCH BASIN CRATE OVERFLOW 1 POROUS BOTTOM INSTALL IN ALL CATCH BASINS ALCNC FRONTAGE AND DOWNSTREAM OF SITE. IN$TA,1 If, NOW CATCH DASIVS UNTIL SITE IS STABLIZED. NOTE: TNIS DETAIL IS ONLY SCHEMATIC. ANY INSERT IS ALLOWED THAT HAS A MIN. 0.5 C.F. Of STORAGE. THE MEANS TO DEwATER THE STORED SEDIMENT. AN OVERFLOW. AND CAN BE EASILY MAINTAINED. ANY ACCUMULATED SEDIMENT ON OR AROUND 'HE FIL FABRIC PROTECTION SHALL SE REMOVED 'MMEDIATELY. SEDIMENT SHALL NOT BE REMOvEO rAEI WATER, ANC AL_ SEDIMENT MUS' BE C15P7_'EU OF AS rILL CN SITE CR HAULED OFF SITE. ANY SEDIMENT IN THE CATCH BASIN INSERT SHALL BE REMOVED WEN THE SECIMENT HAS FILLED CNE -THIRD OF THE AVAILABLE STORAGE. 'HE FILAR UEDIA FOR -HE INSERT SHALL BE CLEANED 09 REPLACED AT LEAST MONTHLY. REOULAR MAINTENANCE 'S CRITICAL FOR BOTH FORMS Or CATCH BASN PROTECTION. UNLIKE MAW' FCRMS OF PROTECTION THE FAIL GRADUALLY, CATCH BASH PROTECTON W/LL 'AIL SUCOENLY AND COMPLETELY - F NCT MAINTAINED PROP_RLY. CATCH BASIN FILTER NTS SITE OK`IELOPlENT SERVICES 310 106TH ST SE BOTHELL, WA 98012 (4251 481-687 (425)485 (FAX) DATE 4 - -o4 SCALC , t" = Ic - O" OLAWN C. 15 E. SM� 1 111 LAL1DSCAPE PLAU SC-3 RETAIL ES UILDI)J;w 17401 5ouT5CLMTLQ. P4 1. •y TUKWILA, 'NA CRAW. b. ESVELT LANDSCAPE ARCN■TECT 18945 Si 213T9 RLN7oa WA f8o3o(4231432•ILSd 3• "PJ LMODO JM'tH De. - '8 •'GUV 5Ta 14M' MA LA 2014A,.. • 4 '1415 O• C[ t MSe U' AZ4 IA •Tlu 147 NOL M 2.11L LY SUCM.t (ON • ■ILL,f) 4 \ ` I 5 2 MYIIu RICODLOLD J - ' 1 -SL N M IN O K I G Yr= tISS� ' 1 -'LOS! „ow' D4a D1114Ys r • ,• o- T LAST\•; f4Iggg OYTAAY.4C. AiA1a; ♦ � �IZL 4- tA YWOOD 2- swats WIh1i LD Lu092YMUS - LruulaKlGUlcv..\\ 3 5•KlUUICKIN U lc 44 �,]•KIUNICKIUNICK . •� ;7 4. TLUMIIT NONLYSM CNL 2.0ss fell+ 4 Mv•SR • DOTE: ACTUAL WGaTlou of 5 PLANT ISO :5 WW1. ar DU .*CIOSS •CCISS Dew! ' Sao, WS Laski! SOf DOS. 7 5Yf[:tICUM l _ • boSTeu fyY (9 - 3'ROii :LOW' 2G DA n• 1' ♦ • - y luu LK • .� UOTES- 1•DLmD•ooG J••uES! Mahi 3. 0LD SOLO JVMIFE 5 •'PJN RSODO 11• Kluu,cg,NU1co. ~ Y I - SLluDOR M CVPaIS5 2 • 'DOWSALL MdIL4 k%15TIN4 L4UD3CAPI1J 0 -1LY •Y1rea. NOSS •a.ie WIl•(TWMwrile.' 7,5721.1• o o Ma Nara P40: . 4051 M MI5. Ps Mt IF • a14•YIW TJY /, VI HI• I.*K ' •s11'Nali (2 r11 tau) siTta .L41 vvWIYFT, ;NfN. Sass• WO: s IM.M M ot.catr wN aua N.LV K'wi .S 41,4 1t11Se Ti t.HNL 4 LO 7. Mail set. WATUL TTY DltoW MOT4LL r LLt1 Met. NCa I /a ., •rtsA1 . r...ertscr 1.451• O •ALKTKL TREE STAYS-MG DETAI'F ('11LLauaas { esuouts) 51-12US PiAuJTI116 DETAIL 120 4cA1F • .:Io 1L ALL . • ALL IRANPS Soya 3S lrelamr,Z I v,ner, M,1 IMCWI xEO,ENI 411 lYn5e.t5E011o12Mhf.EANO 0A1.P A O'EOUOCJwMMt 04450 ;aP: ES T1 0..t1[4 N 0 5 4 TW11MCO05ML cut,. 1PWNWP 5 arsat.J 0 M K• MALT b1.16 wmE 50} Na MOlSAYIN 11.020.161T. 522!074145 AMMONS TO 4 11 '11M 1111444 • m oETr43 N0 + .lan0.6 ,11211 2 0.4)2. 1 5 Carseun yyCfrvE/ep.fEm , IX/X0/AL ItASTSSIWL DE 4UVI.w1eo .. yl4aussess Ce•YlV Gar1LY165CASOlA MIMIN WOOL AIND AMI K1EOt• • Wel 8.44GraLeis rust RR M-.4.1.I11 " SO SOW.. vsasoossosiS r slnNes 4AIS'll keLY Of •i • e1K Cxsit • 4 - KIIINILY•,NU IC►. 3. OLD 40411 4UUIICL - -- 1 -'last 4L'5W DS0DLL 1,4/444 • LMODO.�- 3 -. D4A05 MUGHO PIN• - 4 •KINNILKINUICK __.... 3- '4I1.10-Ca4MS01J Az•LEA 20 •KILINIGKIYNICI4•• I- ' KOSTLL'•LUE SPLUCE 2 'tole QueS1 + 12 LaLb 'j5451!1&— -- - 454. :'42I0 L t 41 0t st.elrw! nA�aeeti S 0 U THCE,U7S2 PARKW AV - - 2•'1104S•LI. M••41- . 1 -LOU GtoSP•At1 LgtY , I. 4 SNPDII+� N" x r L ' 11r113 'gF ''t'; DMd LP'1ELJJiaD.4U 0LIYMUS 41515011 0.3.04 1•'t05k bL0W IALDLRLY -- l• 1 000 MU4.M0 1 NAT[: taeat al T41S 254,411 04513 S 2411. 040014• 4051100M CoQNkt of LLDG. , 1' 2. 44U10040J0 cK' 25.000 6.0LD JUIISfS/L '9- HY 111cu+L 1 ILNDE0 NIUOA.1 C5 •Lts5 — 2• RMODO. S 114444 MUG 50 IINL I ' h0w,all Marlt 2- KINNICKINUICK I- ' DOWOALL MAPLE 3• DWARF 441.057 PI 0.E ?) LESI.' :n 4- KIUU,<Mtuu∎e. ,. Mn , I .. 1 '904100' DLUE /_ti . SPRUGE � • 1- 440 O•L4IMSe N' \ , 7 „........i . / . ♦LdLEA ---"..?/./1 -'35'. KIUUICKINNIL%. S o urA1 Ge•ir•2. P•amtr• 1 ' To EX iST I SUPPLY'Ar ‘C 7: ILL■ FISLD) sPta st404001. *it * 244.41't 45 0$124.87E17 GILL. CONITIteGloiL t .clecurriZoml. 14 PYG 01004 .48 4/M t LAS S 200 ?VG LATLR.AL. 23 . 42.443 1110 PVC LLXIVIL46(WNILILLPLI 7 1It IS rtouills 0LLIISPAV.L76) • I, MILK. SKILL VC INC LCCAL COOK Ha LCOODINS TO IALOVACRIVICS SITCIFICA77.0 • :X . 0.41864034•44)-810.ws6 ico PAC OAL701 47 • 473124 881418 1,8 8 2.444•46•42.4./.28008(r60. ACIPEAmINIMUSPV•t 22000 62 . 1 M4 M CLOalvotti6117.A.C.1077ATIONELEhool,8449. ISCALC WI v2 CIL IT • ■ • 2 la 34 ▪ 12 - 2 4- - 41 148711.4•1-11' - 14x1;711/ ALIO/lig 11•ILLSILISCHL LILII•ATIOLL SMUT • OFF. '12•ISJ LILO ISP• 8 • sr.ertou c our aot.t.ict.. '1.1•LALLOYD •47 1 GAT' v41.411 WITH XIV SSO 1 XOUXLILCMCCA VALVE .1 411.4 1 60 . 600 1 Ptis8u20. 0fi•ui..4211..14 VALvt '11.4“.110■Itti 3P. 4 844•1.1■44 VALVE o714 27LIS ACV 'CLASAPIOSI 1 /4" lo•LIUAL.•144Li. D0.4114 VALVE vA71.1 ILLY '42140.2D' ieo- PA I" 4.1.3.21 4.4.‘v RAiLj•PIL.IL: 1881-128 .840.1.163PILAY POP•ur 81 1084-1214 • 1804-1242 1004-1535T 1104.15 Lir 1E104- SCST.IS S7RS4IA BU08I.kiL POP•uP • \ I iiWRIgA \ s • , MEI GAMMAS OC WAWA. 044 .4 2482w..84 148802a2848420.yurus•Xe21.41r4rt :du 84721 al . . . 0 • 8370 1800 4 1 1 * - 8•8€0 3 412488111•4042044 1 4470 0* 48 2 . . • . . . . • 8: • 042-4 4 •44 6.4010 8 98840 4 4 4 zouo4G7464.•014C8313 048280 Ill04&TOCIONE00.1.004e Oloos Lox Noe too . Cbtlt • DEVLA•MIIIF WOW- 10 Or cCse.S.7e1 IR Mado Loom GRAM OOML /QOM RYA 2TALLILSPIXeCX. . . • 7 117 STALLALLIWO•74061XL . 0421848-44.12 PlISH ISIONXILLOIL 7 XXSAIIX.XIXONC,10•77ALSESOLY Al 0 arts moo .0o4 advagstiosota• lama" mortsevonts .4o 1.,4428 17042. • 0 .". 1 . 9 "...t.....4.51 , 91 NW4 •6.6146•••••■••■14410844.4•421464*Fatereumenouse., • • • • sci•trmis . i11111171CIXICIMILIS ILICOOSIOrso oillITIOCLVACOITIOWLEILSOSAION =nrWLIALARA77LLISEIJILSILICCIFFIZ •taer tamer sr stalt" OsaLLLLIRLAILIOEMIL • ..• - • . • • ... . . . , 1V1OC•L CLASS ILO 7VC' • LLSIlviu• UsioSS Alt PAVIUG. • + — — s-4 • 0/4'scuto. 40 •4.4 L3' • ' • ¢EvisEt 4-3-04 0440 6 -8 - 04- sct . 10 c .. " Z . . 4 E, E . 0071, Ls 7 717.,o 714 pr. casLAIL • SAIL- CLASS 5 ESVX, '-440544ot AR..CHtTECT Z of Z 3345 31 21.3 RTLI,Tosk s4. 53 0 06( 4 77 ‘ , 452,587 Cou7ILO•T • slo 7 Acta, . bit 7AtT•L LLP7) 5PQ PLAN 5C-3 ZETA 1 L. BUIED!1.14', IT 4 el 5448'4814 1 766 CAt■gt, 87 'VIOL • 4545704 LLv 91,..v/IST .71 'ft Nee, 44, .44 eitewrr •Ccass Levy( ILA, *744055 3..s.re Of wAsmimirOti 14 PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING SEPTEMBER 16, 2004 REGARDING THE BRAD DECKER MATTER CASE #L04 -036 COMMISSIONERS FOR TUKWILA CHAIRMAN MALINA COMMISSIONER EKBERG COMMISSIONER MERYHEW COMMISSIONER PETERSON COMMISSIONER MARVIN COMMISSIONER ARTHUR TRANSCRIBER CHARLOTTE CORBLEY PLANNING COMMISSIONERS WILL BE REFERRED TO BY THEIR LAST NAME ONE TAPE 1, SIDE ONE, COUNTER 2104 - September 16, 2004 Malina: And with that we'll open the BAR public hearing on L04 -036 for the Winner's restaurant. Bradshaw: (unintelligible). Malina: You can have all the time you want Moira. Bradshaw: (unintelligible). RUSTLING OF PAPERS INTO THE MICROPHONES AND BACKGROUND TALKING, UNINTELLIGIBLE Bradshaw: For the record I'm Moira Bradshaw with the planning department. And I'm here to represent staff for the proposal to redevelop the Winner's site, which is located at 17401 Southcenter Parkway. And uh, I'd like to enter into the record the staff report dated the 19 of August 2004 and then we received uh, another letter on this project, that is exhibit 2 and that was from Chuck Whitman and JSH Properties, dated August 26 You should all have a copy in front of you. And then um, we've also received a revised site plan that's stamped in September 15t that's got a second page of revised elevations. That was exhibit four and those are in front of you as well and on the big sheet, underneath all your paperwork. And the other thing that we've provided is an aerial map, which is behind Commission Marvin on the wall. We thought that would be helpful to try and understand what's going on at the site. I've taken some photographs of the site and the surrounding area. The subject site, unusual in that it's uh, an L- shaped parcel that also has a detached portion to the north on the opposite side of a driveway. It's highlighted in green on the survey at the top of the wall back there. The site uh, share a common driveways and parking lots with developments to the north and, and west and south of it. The Ethan Allen property and uh, the property to the west that currently is occupied by Joann, Border's and Linen and Things and (unintelligible). And the site is a little over 47,000 square feet and the current development, the restaurant, takes up about 9,300 square feet. The proposal is to add 18,000 square feet of, to build a strip retail building currently, with the accessory needed parking and uh, trash recycling and loading areas. So let me go ahead and show -1- you the slides of kind of what the site looks like and the surroundings just to familiarize yourself. We did have issues with uh, the layout of the property. It was difficult to make it all work and um, so we spent a lot of time sort of looking at it and the surrounding area. BACKGROUND WHISPERING AND THEN BRADSHAW HAS MOVED SLIGHTLY AWAY FROM A MICROPHONE Bradshaw: Anyway. One of the points that we made in the staff report is that uh, Southcenter Parkway all the way from Klickitat, at the top of the hill and looking down the property provides a, is sort of the focal point for the drive, because the road takes a turn to the east and Winners currently sits right at um, the curve in the road. So there's the existing site. One of the other uh, factors that had to be taken into consideration in the overall design is the fact that the site currently sits up or the building currently sits up uh, five feet, kind of above sidewalk level and blends in with the adjacent uh, parking to the south and to the best, behind the building. So that was an issue that had to be dealt with, uh, with putting in more impervious surface on the site and a larger building. Uh, right now the site plan calls for hauling off and cutting about 3,000 cubic yards of fill from the site. There's a little cross section of the slope and uh, the existing public improvements along the right of way. And on the north side of the property you see a, kind of a service area and parking and the driveway that was the subject of a couple of comment letters that we- received from adjacent property owners. There's a property owner to the north, Ethan Allen, (unintelligible) improvements. This is the north section of the lot and uh, there are I think 20 parking stalls here. The landscaping uh, the existing landscaping actually is owned by the adjacent property owner, the large property owner to the west that uh, leases to Joann's and Borders and so on. And the subject site and the applicant only has control over the parking stalls themselves and not the landscaping. There's kind of another picture of, the condition ,of the landscaping that was also the subject of lone of the comment letters that we received. And um, and then uh, this is the rear of the site. The uh, common access drive is just on the left edge of the slide and the property extends to the curb line we're sort of assuming. And then over towards to the front on the south side, -2- this is where the adjacent property owner meets the existing property, subject property that we're dealing with. And you can see that it ties in with kind of walkway right to the left of that white bar there. There's the walkway that goes down to Southcenter Parkway and stairs are actually connecting to the sidewalk out in front. And then from that edge, looking into the development that shares the parking and access, a signal to provide easy lefts out of this development is, is directly in front of us by that freestanding sign. And then the development itself and what it looks like. It's fairly massive. There are large retailers that are in there. There is a continual arcade that runs along the front of it that's covered that has a number of um, there are little pedestrian plazas. Now one of the major issues that came up in this development was the proposed building, the new building, would fit relative to the northern most entrance to the building in the rear. And contrary to what may be indicated on the site plan, um, what the site plan shows are two um, handicap stalls. And this line here, this landscaping would be retained and the property owners property starts right at the edge of the red car that you see directly to the right of us. And their set -back from that property line is 10 feet. And so, so uh, the edge of the proposed building actually would come at about um, if I get this right, here we go, right about here. So the actual entry, the glass entry, is here and um, let's see if we go here, you can see the walkway here. It's a fairly wide, generous walkway that leads up to their entrance doors and the edge of the building again, it's going to come somewhere, right about in here. And so the entries would be visible, sort of connected, but the entire sort of architectural features would be somewhat cut off by the edge of the building. And there's another look in'at where we're trying to connect, looking back out. If you're looking at the site plan, that fire hydrant there is sort of a landmark for where that is in relationship to um, the proposed building edge. Again I think the building edge would be somewhere about in here, because these are going to be 20 foot stalls, then there's a 10 feet set -back that they're building to. Again here's the area between the two buildings that's also a concern, concern because of the height, the feel that you get. They are um, the subject site is going to park directly off of and the, the stalls will use this driveway for maneuvering in and out of and uh, and their building which varies in heights, I -3- think 22 to 33, would then be along this side here. You see that the um, the west side over here in front of the existing building is fairly nicely planted with some Alaska cedars and some (unintelligible) trees as well as some shrubs. And then another picture. They have um, uh, their handicap ramp, although I don't know exactly why this is here, since we've got some handicap stalls here. But anyway there is a crossing that goes to Winners. It connects with the pedestrian walk along the front of the restaurant and uh, leads up a ramp and into the arcade and sidewalk along the front of the building in the rear. There is another more direct look at it. Some of their site improvements, like the bike rack are there. Um, I also wanted to sort of point out some of the um, detailing that went into the building behind. There's fairly substantial cornices and uh, parapets over the entrances to the spaces in the rear. More detail. And then I just wanted to point out some of the issues that, that came up. Um, we've asked the applicant to incorporate lighting into the overall design of the proposed structure and this is just a sample of uh, lighting that was incorporated into the Center Place Development, directly north on Southcenter Parkway. Again more detail in terms of the building itself on the existing development to the west. Um, and then some of the pedestrian plaza areas that are part of the development to the south. As you can see they've got um, uh, paved, special pavement treatment and uh, various facilities like the butt, butt boxes and things. And in another development to the north, the type of uh, pedestrian improvements that have been put in. So you can see they've got special planting, special pavements, as well as fencing. So um, that's sort of an orientation that I wanted to provide, go over some of these issues. BACKGROUND SHUFFLING OF PAPERS AND WHISPERING, VOICE ACTIVATED BREAKING IN OR SOMETHING Bradshaw: I just wanted to go over, I believe most of the interested or parties of record are here tonight and we'll go over their comments. But they uh, were things that were considered by staff. There was concern by Ethan Allen about the adequacy of / the parking. In particular they have had some experience with vandalism, and so they were concerned about adequate lighting in the north portion of the parking lot, the twenty stalls that are part of this project, that are on the north of the driveway. And the condition of the -4- landscaping. They were concerned about the condition of the sign. There's a private stop sign at that north entry uh, or north driveway that's no longer readable. And uh, the safety for the pedestrians because uh, the pedestrians will have to cross the 20 foot or 25 foot driveway to the north parking stall. Um, a couple of applicants have raised the issue of making left turns on Southcenter Parkway. We've talked with our Public Works Department. There . was a transportation report that was done or a traffic report that was done for this project. Basically what they concluded in the traffic report was that the current restaurant, even though it's half the size of the proposed retail building, it's a high turnover restaurant and actually generates more trips than the proposed retail development would generate. Uh, and then there is the alternative of going to the north, to get the signalized intersection, but no Warren analysis was called for because there has been no indiction of um, high accident location and all the other reasons that require a signal. So um, the adequacy of the proposed parking, the applicant does meet the City's parking standard. There was a concern about the relocation. Currently part of the Winners site, that's undeveloped is used for joint parking between the Winners development and the adjacent Joann's development and there's a joint agreement. And the applicant has a concern about the reallocation of the parking. From the City's standpoint, the parking is actually broken up around the site. You've got some in front, the north and to the west and so um (unintelligible) our design criteria from that standpoint. Um, the um, the main concern that staff had with this site layout, there were, there were a couple of issues. First of all, we felt like there was a lost opportunity by placing the building back behind the landscaping and the parking strip. The building no longer becomes a, can no longer be the central feature of the site development. It's missing out on the opportunity of the focal point that the property provides. It also did seem to turn it's back on the development that it shares a parking and driving with. And staff felt that there needed to be a better relationship between those two developments, i especially in providing good pedestrian circulation between the two. So um, because of, of concerns about the site layout we asked for outside review of the site layout and had a memo that was prepared by Freeman, Tung and Bottomly, an urban design firm who is familiar with the -5- urban center and uh, they came up with an alternate suggestion of uh, an L- shaped building that would give the applicant flexibility of going out toward the street and moving the south portion of their building back so that there would be a better relationship between the building behind and the new building that would be proposed in front. And it would take advantage of the ability of the building to provide a focal point for the area. The applicant however, uh, was um, not willing and felt he was unable to make that compromise in the overall layout of the site for a number of reasons. The um, disconnect with the parking to . the north and um, the inability to connect with the property to the, to the south, to the Joann's lot. At the very north, staff had point out, I think in the staff report, a couple of areas where there is going to be some problems with curbs not quite meeting at logical locations and potentially creating tripping hazards. There really needs to be uh, coordination between the adjacent property owner and the subject developer, the subject site. So um, so, so the applicant then met with staff, after the staff report, to look at other options and just this week came in with an application to uh, move the um, point it out to you. Malina: On this particular drawing? Bradshaw: The south um, (unintelligible). To move the southeast corner of the building here back so it's going, it's a perpendicular plain to the street and to um, Joann's entrances is right here. So instead of jutting out to the south, it comes back and um, there's an easier transition around the corner of the building and a better flow. And the site, onto the feature in the back are preserved. THERE IS BREAKING UP ON THE MICROPHONE AND VERY DIFFICULT TO HEAR ALL THE WORDS. Bradshaw: The applicant also in his most recent application has shown a um, sidewalk and proposed some facade improvements so that (unintelligible) elevation here is less like the rear of a building. And uh, looks more like the building wraps around (unintelligible) proposed along, in this section of the building and then on the south side it faces the um, Joann's and then the parking lot. This becomes a regular wall with an entrance and um, and parapet (unintelligible) on this side and -6- a walkway then would exist here with people getting out of this. Um, the overall square footage of the building comes down a little bit. That also frees up a parking stall or two that um, then could become landscaping that would mirror and soften this whole edge as well. There's about 20 stalls or so there. They could then be broken up with some landscaping that would be a compliment (unintelligible). VOICE ACTIVATED SOUNDS FROM RUSTLING ON THE OTHER MICROPHONES IS MAKING IT VERY DIFFICULT TO HEAR WHAT BRADSHAW IS SAYING. Bradshaw: So (unintelligible), I'll go ahead and pass this around. This is the revised rear elevation on the board. I think it's, (unintelligible). It's different than what you have on the site plan (unintelligible). So staff felt that with this compromise in the um, site layout here and with the improvements in the elevation along the west side and south side and um, uh, and landscaping (unintelligible), we felt that at this point we could recommend approval of the overall site layout, subject to refinements of the, the parapet elements that are being added and the paving detail here. One of the issues that remains is the (unintelligible) looked at a little bit closer. There is parking here. People are going to be going back and forth. Staff feels that there needs to be a hard surface area with more of a (unintelligible) than there is, but any plantings in raised beds or raised. And that could come for their pedestrian element and the enhance the over all site improvement. And then we still need to talk about some of the details in the (unintelligible) building. What we talked to him about doing is enhancing these vertical elements that have been, that are part of the current design, popping them out. (Unintelligible) at about afoot, but some of the cornice treatment doesn't continue all the way up and so (unintelligible) so that each of the columns then is treated with a similar fashion with the corners coming out on either side and stepping away. from the building and providing some (unintelligible) element in the overall design. And that would be triggered from the rear as well where possible. Uh, there, this section of the building actually sits right on the on the 10 foot setback and they didn't want to loose any more square footage and so uh, we discussed setting back the upper portion, which would then pop out the column element on either side. And then uh, the um, that (unintelligible) -7- shows you the revised (unintelligible) treatment for the rear. And so um, so you can see that the columns, the vertical columnar elements are in the front have been carried around to the one side. Staff would like to see it on this side, recognizing that this could necessarily be popped out the (unintelligible), but they could pop the top part back and then you get your cornice treatment on the top which would be similar the treatment of the side here. Um, anyway some, one of the things that um, doesn't show up on these elevations is that uh, on this side for instance, which is the front corner, there is going to be parapets that will be visible and staff has discussed working with them. Right now they're only proposing like a two inch wide um, parapet with it being built out about another foot. So um, we'd like to see a parapet that's at least as wide as the column here, so that it looks like you've got something sort of sitting up there on top of the column that's being supported. But again it would sort of be reflective of the sort of significant (unintelligible) treatment and entry treatment that you've got on the development to the rear. BRADSHAW IS NOW BACK AT HER MICROPHONE MAKING IT MUCH EASIER TO HEAR AND THERE IS NOT THE VOICE ACTIVATED BREAKING IN AND OUT Bradshaw: The staff at this point, with the revised site plan that was received with this week, feels that the BAR could approve the project, subject to conditions. And they would be um sort of general, general conditions. This has been received at the last minute. Haven't had a chance to go over in detail the revised site plan, but generally meeting all the applicable standards of our codes, screening all above ground utilities that um, might need to be located on the ground, like a utility box. Uh, enhancing the building elevations by improving the parapets and delineating the vertical elements and um, modifying the materials at the base. Uh, staff thought that the tile, the beige tile, currently being used could be modified to reflect the green /blue hues that are being used as an accent in the awnings and cornice treatment. Creating the pedestrian plaza ion the south side in that left over space just to the south of their southeast corner. Uh, the, they continue to show a seven foot walkway along the front of the building. And that seven foot walkway has to accommodate the three foot doors which are the entry ways into the building that -8- will swing out as well as overhangs. They're parking their cars with a seven, seventeen foot deep stall and allowing the additional overhang to be along the sidewalk. So we feel like a minimum of eight foot sidewalk is um, is a minimum in order to provide a sufficient and gracious entry to the um, front of the building. And then we'd like to encourage the applicant to continue to engage with the adjacent property owner, to resolve some of the leftover curbing that could cause a hazard for, for pedestrians that are walking. Also we think it would be a benefit to the project and to, not only to this project but to the adjacent project, if the parking areas in the front um, right in through here are connected. Bradshaw: And also that the landscaping along the north edge that's currently pretty substandard be upgraded and also modified in some way so that the um, there are pass throughs for pedestrians that are going to get out of their car and walk across the driveway. And um, and then the other thing that staff has been working with the applicant on is um, making sure that the lighting enhancing, enhances the overall architectural design of the building. They provided some um, I don't think it's (unintelligible). They have provided, that came after this. They have come up with a new standard for the front of the building which will be placed along the vertical elements of the front to provide up and down lighting I believe. Uh, and then uh, they've been unsuccessful in providing something similar in the back and staff has suggested that ground lighting or up- lighting or something is placed unobtrusively on the ground to provide both an esthetic uh, environment as well as a safe environment in the rear of the building. Before you make a motion to close this hearing, I would advise that you discuss among yourselves, because of where we are in the review of this building, how you'd like to proceed. Whether you'd like to articulate findings and conclusions that support staff recommendation at this point and the conditions, um, or, that would be one option. The second option would be to close the hearing and direct staff to prepare findings and ,conclusions for you, that we would bring back, /that you could then adopt at a future meeting. Or to continue the hearing to allow the applicant to bring back any modifications that you would like to see made and for those to be done in a timely manner so that staff could review them and prepare some supplemental findings and -9- conclusions. So those are the three options that we've thought about uh, for proceeding with project. Malina: Any questions of staff at this time? Ekberg: Could the fourth one be to continue the hearing and direct staff to prepare recommendations? Bradshaw: Yes. Ekberg: Okay. Malina: Anything else from staff at this point? Bradshaw: I think there is a sign -in sheet so I'll go ahead and, and get that for you. Henry: I don't really know where to start. I have questions. I'm not, I'm a little confused at this point. Are we going to discuss this project? Malina: Sure. Meryhew: Let's hear from the applicant and anybody else. And we're going to have a discussion following. Marvin: Maybe we can talk to staff about it. Malina: Holly- molly. Ekberg: Before you leave I have two other questions for you. Bradshaw: Okay. Ekberg: What can you tell us about the high pressure storm sewer line? Bradshaw: That's been reviewed by the Public Works Department. They agreed at the outset of this project. There's one uh, 36 inch storm drain line that actually goes through the subject site, that will have to be located in an L around the building. And the storm water manager is satisfied that, or has given the applicant the go ahead to proceed with redesign of that 36 inch line. The 48 inch line, I think the sanitary sewer actually goes, is outside of the subject site and the Public Works Department is not concerned about that. Ekberg: Okay. And what do you know about any reciprocal easement agreements between property owners down -10- there? Bradshaw: They have a high stack of paperwork regarding the joint uses and agreements. We've reviewed that with City Attorney. She feels that the private issue that concerns them and is not really a concern of the City and that we can proceed ahead with our decision. Ekberg: Okay. And one, one further point. Up on Highway 99 there was talk and consideration, about bringing buildings towards the street front. Is there any consideration of that in this, this area? Bradshaw: Uh, there is uh, consideration of that in talking with our um, consultants who are working on our urban center plan. However, at this time we don't have any standards or criteria that really suggest that that needs to be done. Staff felt that the criteria that we have um, in terms of the relationship of the site to the adjoining areas, it would enhance and uh, be an exciting thing for the applicant to do, but that uh, that's as much as we had (unintelligible). Ekberg: Thank you. Malina: With that we'll hear from the applicant. And if you would state your name and address please? Decker: My name is Brad Decker, 117 East Louisa Street, #230, Seattle, Washington 98102. And I'd like to give you all a history of this project. We've been working for 10 months on this project, since November. Oh, where did all my notes go. Yeah, I do. The first one, can you set up the first board or the first design. We purchased the property back in December and before that, in November, we'd been working on it and put together a design. And the current owner, at that time, was selling the property so they didn't really want to talk to us. So as soon as ING purchased the property, uh, first week of January, we sat down and talked with Steve Latimer who is the manager of ING for this area. And at that time he was unwilling to work with us. We offered lots of different solutions of ,what we could do, how we could work together. That little corner, we have an odd piece where we have part of our property on the street, but most of the property is behind the street. So what is the best effective design for the site? So we struggled with it for a long time. This is the first design we put together and actually had our pre- application meeting on December 4 And the City felt it was a little too massive. We brought the building to the street as they had requested. This is a retail use so there is less parking there. Um, so we decided not to proceed with that one. But all along we've been working with ING to let them know what we're looking at and how could we work during this process. So in, I think we decided in January not to proceed with that one. So the next time we tried this, where is the one with all the different designs? You know, what can we do with this site? How can we design a building that will work on this site that's effective as a retail building, that's functional? And we came up with lots of different ideas and designs of just little hand sketches. One of them is the consultant. The challenge is, we need, this is an auto zone. People don't walk down here from the mall. People drive down here and they get out of their car and uh, they go to their retailer and if there's a co- tenancy, like across the street, then they'll go from shop to shop. There's great co- tenancy across the street. The center we are at doesn't have good co tenancy. That's what we're hoping to provide. And that's what the retailers there will work together to provide more people coming in. Uh, those show lots of different options. The challenge we had was getting enough parking stalls close to our door so that the people can drive up there. The L, there are two different L's. The one to the south, we don't have an easement to enter from the south. That's why we've asking ING to work with us um, to provide one on our current design. Then again they are unwilling to work with us. I sent them a certified letter. Uh, Mrs. Bradshaw put together a meeting where we met and they said they're unwilling to work with us. Uh, the reason is because of the Joann's building. They're not happy with the design because it's in front of their building and they don't want to have a building there, which I understand, but that doesn't mean it's right. So we looked at lots of different designs and we felt the best one was the one, the next one that we put together and worked with. Now this building is 33% of what we could have had. And that's a big, big drop in square footage that we've ;reduced, 7,000 square feet. So here was a 20,315 square foot building, which we felt met the needs of the tenants. We went out, after submitting that and having a pre - application hearing and getting relatively good feedback, Nora was at that meeting, and we worked through the zoning -12- issues and then we out to the tenants and the tenants were excited about it and uh, Lance did a great job on the design. Where's the color rendering of it? Why don't you grab another easel. But there keeps becoming more and more issues. And so we keep, that's why I apologize for the late notice. I was working with Nora when Moira was sick or out and unable to uh, to meet with me and some of the direction we got was not some of the direction that Moira would like. So we've had to go back and forth and we're continually changing the building to meet the needs of what the building department has requested. So the last minute one is to meet the needs of the Joann's by making the building perpendicular, losing another almost 2,000 square feet of the building. So this building now is almost the same size, it's about 8,000 square feet bigger than the one you just approved, that went through really easy. Um, this one is just 18,000 square feet now, 600. And so we'd like the opportunity to proceed. We have been working extensively with the building department and trying to work with the neighbors. The owner isn't there. The manager is here to speak about it and he's the one that wrote the letter, who we have been working with it also. Um, I think that's it. Thank you for your consideration. Malina: Any questions the applicant at this time? Peterson: I have a question. So there is no landscaping currently along the west side or the north side of the building right adjacent to it? Decker: The west side of the building um, well we do have landscaping islands there from the parking. There's one on the north side and there's a large one on the south side. Peterson: Oh, is that "LS" for landscaping? Decker: Yes. That's the landscaping. Peterson: Okay. Sorry. I didn't see that. Decker: That's okay. Malina: Anything else from the applicant at this time? /Alright. Thank you. Decker: Oh, I'm sorry. Can I ask, there is one more thing I wanted to give you? Malina: Please. - 13 - Decker: Regarding the easement, here's a copy of our recorded part that talks about the common, we have an easement all the way on the north side and the west side, but we don't have one on the south side. So part of this common, we also have reciprocal parking, which means they can use our parking and we can use theirs. This is out of the reciprocal parking agreement which defines common parking as, as that area of subject property that is not building area. And building area is defined as, as the area of the subject property on which the building, landscaping or other improvements, not devoted to parking are now or may thereafter be located. We have the right to change our parking. And that's their, that was the concern in their letter. We're changing and actually providing more parking. We're providing nine more parking spaces from going from 50 currently, and not including the 20 up north which aren't part of the reciprocal, so from 50 to 59. So we're providing nine more parking spaces. So that's the issue and that's part of that. Malina: How about the concern of your northern neighbor as far as adequate lighting in that 20 parking, stall area, vandalism or whatever else may go on there? Decker: Yeah we would, we had proposed to add a light at the end of it. There currently are two lights in the middle. Malina: Right. Decker: We don't own those. Those are owned by ING, but we are proposing to put one at the very end which would provide the lighting which is what they're asking for. Malina: So you're proposing to add on, oh, I see you've got the new pole marked here on this one here. Decker: Yeah. Malina: Okay. Decker: So we try to meet their concerns of what we can and, the unfortunate part is that the property /owner is unwilling to . work with us. And they've told us they will after we get it permitted, but they, we have to demonstrate that we don't need them. So, until then, if they can't work with us, it's not our property. We can't do anything about it unfortunately. -14- Malina: Okay. Decker: And by the way, we'd be willing to make the improvements and pay for it. Malina: Okay. Thank you. Decker: Uh, huh. (Affirmative). Malina: At this time, oh, excuse me (unintelligible). Scofield: I just want, I'm Bob Scofield. I'm a minority owner. Malina: Can I have your address too please sir? Scofield: (unintelligible). Malina: Your address? Scofield: My address is 4212 Hunts Point Road, Bellevue, Washington. And I'd like to defer any comment. I'm just to here to listen to what the Joann's Fabric attorney has to say and JSH, which is ING has to say and then I would be the person that would answer those comments. So I just wanted to register as an owner. Malina: Okay. Scofield: Thank you. Malina: Okay. We have a sign -up sheet at this time. And the, for those of you that did raise your hand and, and swear that the testimony that you'll give will be the truth, uh, the first person we have on the list is Catherine Drews who is presenting Joann's. If you would like to .... Drews: Yes. Alright. My name is Catherine Drews. I'm here representing Joann's Fabrics. My address is 925 Fourth Avenue, Ste 2900, Seattle, Washington, 98106. We're here specifically because we're the business that's impacted the most by this development. And we want to just let you know what our concerns were. And the impacts we're concerned about our the esthetics and the customer access and safety for our customer base which is 90% women. Now I'll admit /that we just learned about the new site development plan this afternoon and haven't had time to look at the efforts of Mr. Decker and your staff and we would like some time to do that, to review those plans. But our, our major concerns are lack of visibility and also the back �"� -15- alley effect. And again I haven't seen the current plan to see if we still would have that problem, that would create maybe an uncomfortable transition area for customers parking in the north lot. And one other concern, and I guess, you know, and I'm kind of at a disadvantage not having seen the new site plan, but we are also concerned about garbage and recycling areas that are in the back of the building and may be visible to Joann's customers and uh, pedestrian paths. But it sounds like some of those issues have been addressed. Now we are not against the additional retail or them having a building there. We just want to make sure that it's in harmony with the existing buildings that are in the local area. And we think staff is, you know, has recommended a, has a good recommendation. We would like you to continue the public hearing and allow the comment period to continue to allow us to review the current site plan and um, submit any comments we may have. And that's all. Malina: Any questions of Miss Drew? Thank you. Drews: Thank you. Malina: The next person we have on the list here is Robert Scofield? Scofield: Schofield. Malina: Scofield. Okay. We've got you. The next one we had Chuck Wigman? Man: Malina: Wigman: Malina: Wigman: (Unintelligible). The next person that signed up here is Chuck Wigley? Wigman. And if you'd state your name and your address please? Chuck Wigman, 14900 Interurban Avenue South, Suite 210, Tukwila, 98168. Um, I'm here just talking on behalf of the owners and, and you've probably read my letter. We do have ob', objections to the design. Brad brought up a / couple times that ING, which if you're not familiar with them is a large institutional real estate holder. Um, we have a couple of leases, you know, Joann's and Border's Books, that both have a "no- build" clause that's marked out in their leases. Um, and frankly we can't really, -16- you know, offer up that, you know, and work in conjunction with something that's going to put a building in an area on the leases that would have shown as a "no- build" clause. So that's kind of where we're coming from. I mean we're not unreasonable people. We're just following are fiduciary responsibility there. So anyway as to the building itself, um, our main concerns were, you know, having a 36 foot high building within, you know, 40 feet of uh, 46 high foot building and creating basically a back alley effect for the front door for one of our major tenants. Um, secondly if you take a look at their main parking area that they're creating in the front, um, you'll notice that the access to that is within, I don't know, what, 25 feet of the road. So you guys have all been out and had lunch in Southcenter. I mean, so if two cars are sitting there waiting to take a left, which is next to impossible at lunch or during Christmas or any of that stuff, how is anybody going to get into the parking. lot? Um, so what we think is going to happen is people aren't going to go into that parking lot. They're going to go past it. They're going to drive around and they're going to park in our parking lot, which we do have a reciprocal parking easement which is another bone of contention from our standpoint. `Cause we believe that that easement was designed, you know, I mean you've got a copy of it and you can read it, but uh, we think it's pretty clear that it says, you know, that if it's a parking area it needs to be parking area. If it's building area, then it's building area. So effectively what they're doing with their plan is to relocate parking away from an area that was usable by both Winners and ours, to areas that are really only beneficial to them. And I honestly don't think you can even get into that parking area. So um, beyond that, you know, you've seen .. the rest of my letter and we just want to on record that uh, you know, we think it's way too big a building and it's not good design and it doesn't, you know, work well with what's currently there. Malina: Thank you Chuck. Ekberg: Before you leave can I ask you a question? Wigman: ; Uh, huh. (Affirmative) Ekberg: When you say something about a "no- build" clause? Wigman: Yes. -17- Ekberg: What.... Wigman: We have two leases that have those in them. Ekberg: Yeah. Educate me a little on that. Those "no build clauses" are in relationship to what property? Wigman: Our property. Basically what it is... Ekberg: It's not, it's the property we're talking about though? Wigman: ....is it's an exhibit in the lease and they take a shaded area in front of their store and they say, you know, this is a dedicated "no build" zone because they don't want buildings built in front of their building, which would block their visibility, which is what this one does. Ekberg: Yeah, but what I'm thinking in my mind is that the "no build" clause may not apply to this specific property we're talking about. Wigman: Well it, it can't apply to somebody else's property. Ekberg: Right. Wigman: But if you look at the way the property is laid out, I mean we've got our property and then it's their property and then we hook around and we've got that little property in the front there, so ... Ekberg: Right. Okay. Wigman: ...it's shaded in the whole area, so.... Ekberg: What would you say to the wild idea of having that whole building moved to the front and the parking moved to the rear? Wigman: You know, I think that would be a better design, but that's, you know, I'm not authorized to say we will or won't do that. I think that would be a matter of getting our attorneys to talk with Joann's and Borders and working it out with Brad and all that kind of stuff. So it's not as easy Ja process as it seems like, but that makes sense. Ekberg: Thank you for your time. Wigman: Anything else? -18- Malina: No. And the next person we have on here, there's no first name, there's just the letter "R" Scofield. Oh, okay. I'm sorry. Scofield: (unintelligible). Malina: And I think that does it. Lance Mueller wanted to speak on the last project. Mueller: (unintelligible) I don't have anything to add. Thank you. Ekberg: You might open it up to somebody who maybe didn't have a chance. Malina: If any of you out here would like to speak on the subject and didn't have an opportunity you're more than welcome. Ekberg: The lady over there to, (unintelligible). Moore: I have a question as to whether the .... Malina: If you'd come up to the podium and give your name and your address please? Moore: My name is Dana Moore. I'm representing Ethan Allen Home Interiors at 17333 Southcenter Parkway, Tukwila, 98188. Just wanted to see if you'd received the copy that was directed Moira Bradshaw, written by our ownership on July 27 th ? There were nine different points in it.... Ekberg: The 28 th , yeah. Moore: ...some of course which have been addressed tonight. Ekberg: We have. Yes we did. Moore: That's great. Thank you very much. Malina: (Unintelligible). And if you'd please state your name and dress again please? Scofield: My name is Bob Scofield at 4212 Hunts Point Road, Bellevue, Washington. Just a little background on myself, um, I have been involved with the City since 1978. And um, did the development for, /where Lamps Plus is, Men's Wearhouse and all of the (unintelligible) properties all along from Wendy's up to Lamps Plus and currently involved with Brad on Strander and I'm also now currently looking at the Wendy's property where Wendy's isn't wanting to leave and representing the -19- family there that's owned that property since 1924. So I've been down with the City for many many years and been a part of that street and have watched it and enjoyed what, what the City has done down there. I think that um, if I take and go through the comments of JSH and um, Joann's, which are valid comments from their, their point of view, it can possibly shed some light, not only for them but for all of us here tonight. So what I'm going to do if I may is, I'm just going to take the letter and I'll read to the different, I'll read the letter and then I'll offer some suggestions that come from the traffic study and things like that that will possibly give us the answers. So I'll start with the JSH letter. In the second paragraph it says, "Unlike the existing building on the site, the proposed building would project extensively to the south and front of our building, directly in front of the entry." And I think Moira corrected that. The building will actually be 32 feet to the north of their entry, exactly. We've been out and measured it. So it doesn't block the front if it. It says, This significantly blocks the visibility of Joann's store from Southcenter Parkway and locates the rear of the proposed building very close to Joann's main entrance." Well as we, as we've been designing this, and evolving it, what we have now reached with this final drawing um, is that there is no rear to that building. The south, the south part of the building is designed as the north anchor of the main shopping center. And most shopping centers are designed in "u" configurations and they're designed that way so that you can have as many store fronts as close to the parking as possible, so people don't have to walk, number one. Number two, so your co- tenancies are easy to reach and that if a person goes to shop at one store, rather than have to cross the parking lot or jump in a car and drive, they can just walk over there. So in working with Famous Footwear, which is a tenant that's located on the south, they said, very specifically that they preferred that location versus a location where they were closer to the north end and facing the street, which is a very desirable location. So they said, that co- tenancy is very important. We would love to ,be across the street where the co- tenancies are /great, but there's an exclusion over there where you can't put shoe stores over there. So um, they're thrilled to take and be the north end of the center. Not really considering themselves as being part of our building, but, but they are oriented to the center. So I think we were a -20- little bit remiss in refining that design as thoroughly as we could. And so now what we've done is we've just taken our frontal design, with Moira's suggestion and we've worked them around to the south so we have the peak there that duplicates the front and creates an attractive north end to the center. And then we've also now done it on the west side of the building. So as you now come out of the front of their entrance, Joann's, and I think it's been some reference that it's very close. Well it's really 85 feet away from the building. But what they're going to look at it a very attractive front of a building, with not only the elevations like the front of the building, but also the facades and we haven't quite figured out yet, we're waiting for these determinations, but I wouldn't be surprised if Famous didn't say let's put our door there on that south side, because that's the orientation. But they may, because of store design, keep it on the north side, excuse me, the street side. So it's going to be very attractive. The second thing that's happening there... WALKS OVER TO THE EASEL AND IS NOW HARD TO HEAR Scofield: I know I shouldn't have taken my glasses off, but by adding the sidewalk (unintelligible) and we studied all that. By adding this, this walkway (unintelligible) the sidewalk there, even though we had it coming across here. We cut this building, we just, we just cut off (unintelligible) and decided to drop it down to 27,000 square feet from what it was originally. But what we've got down (unintelligible). We've got a really attractive landscaping potential, which we don't have now. And so if you... END OF TAPE TAPE 2, SIDE ONE - September 16, 2004 Scofield: take and come out this front door of Joann's, rather than see a sea of cars, which is all they see now, and they're not their cars, they're the restaurant cars. Man: Uh, huh. Scofield: (unintelligible). This is what the front of Joann's looks like now. It's just cars. And if you look at the left and you look to the right all you're going to see is cars. And you're going to see a very busy parking lot and a very -21- dangerous parking lot. And they're concerned about their people talking and walking, ladies. Well what we're going to do is provide a building right there, an attractive building and we're going to provide landscaping. And we're going to limit it so that our parking is over here, three isles, approximately 30 spaces. So what we are going to do if you study the (unintelligible) and if you study what the traffic engineers have said, they said there was going to be less traffic and therefore the site is going to be safer. The entrance, that ingress and egress to the north end of the center is going to be safer. The parking lot is going to be safer. Now let's go to another drawing (unintelligible). And so number one, we're creating a better visual effect RUSTLING OF THE PAPERS BY THE COUNCIL DIRECTLY INTO THEIR MICROPHONES MAKES IT IMPOSSIBLE TO HEAR MR. SCOFIELD WHO HAS GONE TO THE EASEL AND IS NOT NEAR HIS MICROPHONE OR ANY OTHER THAT I CAN DETECT Scofield: What we have here, if everybody can see this, is all this parking, with a restaurant door here. I was over there at (unintelligible) on a rainy night and, Thursday night. The restaurant itself had all this, right out through here, (unintelligible). We did a study and we said okay, let's take the restaurant. The restaurant requires 96 spaces. Ours requires 78. So the first thing the load that we're required is less. Now restaurants are not aimed at peak. Their peak loads as far as their traffic is concerned (unintelligible). This restaurant, if you took 80% of capacity. The average, the average group in there is two people, (unintelligible), but you would have 104 cars at 80% of capacity. 104 cars which is way out here. The front of Joann's is right here. So one of Joann's complaints is that (unintelligible) we're,taking, you know, we're going to eliminate 1, 2, 3. But this restaurant uses 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and so I say that the (unintelligible). Joann's now is going to have usual parking. They don't have parking. And when I worked on this I got a call from Mr. (unintelligible) of Joann's back and Cleveland. Ile said, "I'm calling to find out exactly what you're doing over there, what type of i (unintelligible) you're putting in. We're concerned about our parking." And "That restaurant has been a magnet for us." So I said, "We can't have any restaurant because we don't have the ratios." And our tenants are going to be Famous Footwear, Casual Male, T- Mobile, a - 22 - Vitamin shop and these tenants are not tenants that generate what we call a lot of traffic at any given point in time. We're talking (unintelligible). So another effect is we're going to, Joann's is going to gain 57 usable, I say usable parking spaces. I'm a former retailer. I've built 40 stores. I'm built umpteen shopping centers and I've written over 400 leases so I understand the parking requirements. I understand what a store needs to have, a shopping center needs to have (unintelligible) situation. So what's going to happen for Joann's is they're going to have a much nicer area out here. They're going to have usable parking and studies show woman in general like to park within 100 feet of the front door. Well if you take the radius and I bet (unintelligible), 150 really allows them about five usable, if the restaurant (unintelligible) 80% of capacity. What will happen now is, our people will park in here. They'll park over here and they'll park somewhere up here, but this is outside of 150 so (unintelligible) they said at Joann's, we don't even use that up there, it's too far away. We're also putting about 15 parking spaces back here, and about 10 of them are right there in front of Joann's. So not only, we're taking this away, but we're freeing up that by getting rid of the restaurant, plus we're giving them some spaces very close and a crosswalk right here. So in trying to address their issues, number one, the esthetics, I think we are creating a very, very nice frontage out there with the help of the City. We had to work together to come to this conclusion. Number two, I think if we could get together with the Joann's people, if, if the owners back in Cleveland were here and could see what's there, they, they would understand that they're going to have a much better parking situation. The other thing that they're going to have is they're going to have one of the most powerful women's moderate to low - end shoe stores in the United State's, and that store should do over $3,000,000.00 and their shoes are like $29.00 and $39.00 and it's a woman's trip and to get that type of volume you can imagine the even flow of women that are going to come there. So I think that um, if Joann's had this information, they would um, I think they would be pretty thrilled with what it's boiling down to. The third part that Joann's was talking about was "Gee, our visibility." And so there is reference made in the letters and it says, "Gee, the building is going to be three times as high." I don't know, you know, we've went out and we've -23 - checked the plans and the, yes, our building is not going to be 36 feet. It's going to be 33 feet, number one. And the existing building is not three times under that. The existing building is 28 1 1. So the new building would be four and half feet taller. The, the view as you drive down there, they're talking about this impacting their view. Now that's not our responsibility. Joann's knew when they signed that lease that there was a property there and their building was blocked at that time anyway. Um, the shopping center developers had to know that that um, that was problem. And when that happens you generally give them the best, best part of the "pile - on sign ". And that's what they have. The top part of a "pile -on sign" is so valuable on Southcenter Parkway that the people that come to us are willing to pay three times the normal rent to get the top of the "pile -on sign." And I show you my letters of intent. I can also show you that, (unintelligible) situation how valuable the "pile -on sign" is (unintelligible). This is Lamps Plus. This is Lazy Boy, Men's Wearhouse (unintelligible) just north of the center on Southcenter Parkway. When we did this building, (unintelligible) along with the family (unintelligible). Here we had (unintelligible) even farther behind the frontal building. We put this building here and the City said let's put some windows here and let's put some windows here and let's put the front (unintelligible) back here and do it in stucco (unintelligible). So we did all of that. And these, this is really attractive. And you come up here and it's a very attractive look. This building, so what happens to these people? Are they going -to go out of business? Are they not going to be successful because of it's here? They happen to be on the top of the "pile -on sign ". You've got your stop light here. Everybody that goes down Southcenter Parkway they see this sign. They know where Lazy Boy is. What really happens and why this is so valuable on Southcenter Parkway is because traffic studies show that when you're driving down the street, the faster you go, the narrower your field of vision is. You don't start to look to the side, when you're in steady traffic or at speeds. Look, I drive Southcenter Parkway, you know, /three times, three times a week. It's a scary street. It's a real scary street. And I'm not really looking for the signs. But, when I, the "pile -on signs" are in my field of vision. So Joann's, when they signed that lease and they were behind the building and already blocked from -24- the north, not from the south, and the, the developers, ING and JSH, should have (unintelligible) and said, "We're going to give you the top of the "pile -on sign." And Joann probably said, "Yes. We love it." Now I went out and I drove around the eastside today. And I found that at Crossroads and I found uh, out at Redmond, at the center out there, and (unintelligible). Joann's doesn't have pile -on sign and Joann's doesn't have any visibility from the street. So all of a sudden they're saying gee we're going to get blocked a little bit more. They're already blocked, but "We're going to get blocked a little bit more. Look at this." I'll bet you they're paying $18.00 a square foot. But I'm not so sure you couldn't come in and have somebody pay $25.00 a square foot at (unintelligible) next door (unintelligible), because when you drive down Southcenter Parkway, you're going to see this. You're not going to see all the stores in there. If you look across the street where there are so many stores, I can ask you if you can name the stores there. It's very difficult. And I can tell you those stores that come across (unintelligible). What I'm saying is that I think that Joann's and the center, rather than negatives as expressed in these letters, uh, I think they've both got really positive developments here. Increased esthetics, better parking, better safety, better safety of ingress and egress and better signage. If I owned the ING, if I owned the ING property which is the center of the, to the south of us here, that we're a part of basically, I would love to have our design. And if you ask me how to design it, I would say this design is an extremely effective design for them, because it complements their center and it's an extremely effective design for our remaining stores because it takes and breaks up the parking. And we have 37 spaces in front that can accommodate the stores and we have that space out by the street in front of Famous that can take care of that. We don't need to park in front of Joann's. We don't have any maximum periods and as you can tell by the lineup of our stores, we um, have parking in front of those stores that will be adequate for them. So I, I really wish that the ,message and we'd love to work with these people. /I think that the City has seen these things. But I owned that store behind me, I'd be saying "wow" please City let's go ahead with this, because this works for both pieces of property. And it works for the safety. And we think that we have designed a very beautiful building and the main, - 25 - the main story or the building is color. There is only so much you can do with design elements. And I think one of the prettiest buildings I've ever seen, and you don't see them very often, but there's a building throughout the country and it's designed by Ralph Lauren. And it's a white front and it's got beautiful royal blue awnings. And that's the theme of our center. And we think it's going to be the most attractive center down there. And we think if you should go down there, you're going to, we've followed the drawings that the City gave us from the consultant down in San Francisco and did a hip roof on, on the north end and that's going to be the most beautiful blue. And um, I think it's going to be very attractive. And that's the main design element of the building. I also went up to the University Village, the lower part that we're talking about, the coloration at the bottom, they had a very soft apricot and it just softened the building with the whites and then the blues and then we add that little touch of teal green. So we think it's going to be a really beautiful building to anchor the street and we think it's going to be a plus for the ING property and we think it's going to be solid for our people, our customers which are our tenants. And uh, we've worked long and hard on it and we have had to go out and get our tenants so that we can begin to try to get our financing because as you know, there is pressure on the markets and it's a long process. We've owned the property since last December and it doesn't look like we'll get it built, if we get, if we got some type of okay to begin to move ahead tonight, subject to, you know, satisfying all the conditions of staff, which I think we're ,willing to do from everything they've said. Then. we still won't get it open 'til probably October of 2005. And we would appreciate your support in that. And we will um, I think we will be able to work out the remaining few details with the staff and I think staff has felt that and I hope that, I hope that Joann's will be happy and I hope that Chuck and ING will be happy. And um, we thank you for your time very much. Malina: Thank you. Marvin: I have a couple questions. Um, I don't really /know where to start. You said, mentioned that from cutting off this corner of the building and (unintelligible) it back a little farther that would um, I'm not sure what you said, something about the sight lines, that that doesn't block out the building. By doing that it won't block -26- out Joann's? Scofield: Um, no. I didn't. If I said that I didn't mean to say that. Joann's is blocked now by a building that is 28 and '1 feet high. And if you drive down there.... Marvin: Which is where? Where? Malina: Winners. Scofield: Winners. Uh, huh. And you can say that Winners is a little bit, it doesn't block it quite as much, but a sight line, if you're going 35 miles an hour, you're not looking like that. Marvin: I'm not talking about how fast I'm driving. I'm talking about the, about the sight line. Is that building not coming farther south in front of Joann's than it is now? Scofield: It is going, it is coming farther south than it is now. Marvin: Okay. So we agree that that's probably going to cut out more sight... Scofield: Because not only.... Marvin: ...if they are already cutting out some sight now? Scofield: It cuts out sight if you can turn your head at a sharp angle. Marvin: If I can turn my head at a sharp angle? Scofield: You can't see Joann's right now as you're driving down the street. You're seeing Winners. Marvin: Okay. Man: (Unintelligible). Scofield: Yes. Slide two, if you'll put slide two up you'll see that. You won't see it at all. Marvin: I don't see it at all? When I drive down there I don't see Joann's? Okay. Scofield: Not, not until... Marvin: I'll go to my second question. Scofield: ...not until. Okay. - 27 - Marvin: Um, where are the people, if all the Winner's people are parking in front of Joann's, where are the Joann's people parking? Scofield: The Joann's people are parking (unintelligible) or along the sidewalk here (unintelligible). Marvin: No, I mean now. You said now. You said now when you're at 80 %.... Scofield: (unintelligible). Marvin: ...that you're using.... Scofield: (unintelligible). Marvin: Yeah. Scofield: Where are they parking now? They're parking (unintelligible). Marvin: Okay. Scofield: And they are parking way down here. Marvin: But they're not parking in front of Joann's? Scofield: No. Marvin: No one is parking in front of Joann's that's shopping there? Scofield: (unintelligible). Marvin: Because that's full of Winners? Scofield: Very full (unintelligible). Man: Yeah. Um... Scofield: I have a, I have a drawing here that will show you at 80% capacity, with a two car average. Here's Southcenter Parkway. Here's Winners. Now if Winners is at 80% capacity and we're averaging two people per car, then they will fill up everything here (unintelligible). So they'll fill up everything on the north side of the building. They'll fill up everything out here and they need all of that parking. If you take a /radius of 150 feet from the Joann's front door where a woman is generally is going to park, `cause she doesn't want to walk farther than that. This is the 150 foot radius. There's maybe five cars here. Joann's people would park in that 150 foot radius. This is really the, - 28 - this is really a parking that would be available to them. That's how far they'd have to walk. Marvin: How often, how, when are they 80%. I'm just curious as far as the times of the different types of shopping and restaurant use. Scofield: Two times a day. Marvin: Two times a day at 80 %. Scofield: Well I don't know if you're familiar with Winners, but it's been an extremely (unintelligible). It's an over $3,000,000.00 restaurant. Marvin: It's a nice restaurant. Scofield: That's a powerhouse of a restaurant. Marvin: It's a very nice restaurant. Scofield: And it has 261 seating capacity. Marvin: Okay. Scofield: That's a lot of seating capacity. And um, they would love to stay there and we have eight letters of intent from other restaurants that would like to'be there. And if Joann's would really like to be unhappy and if ING would really like to be unhappy, I can go sign a restaurant for here, something like maybe a, a Cheesecake Factory, that might do $8,000,000. They just opened in Hawaii and they're going to do $13,000,000 there. (Unintelligible). It's just amazing. But there are a lot.of powerhouse restaurants who (unintelligible). This is the best restaurant area in the State of Washington. Number one restaurant for Red Robin is $5,000,000 at the Red Robin. And at a,Red Robin it's just unheard of. So if that happened this whole parking and all this parking and then ING and Joann's would really be coming at me. And we would do that. So what's going to happen here is we're going to take and eliminate, 9, 10 and 11 here. Okay. We're going to eliminate 30 parking spaces. We're going to put 15 right here. And by the restaurant going, we're going to free up / that and that and that. Because even if some people came in and decided not to come and park in front here, for Famous, they're going to park over here. If you've been in the Famous Footwear store it's not a store that just, is like a restaurant. So I think in this area here, what -29- they're gaining is another 57 spaces. 57 spaces that they didn't have before. If you just take statistics, (unintelligible) I put the word usable in front of it in our practical, and I owned restaurants. I was uh, an owner of the Yankee Dinner. So I'm very cognizant of what restaurants can do and hurt a center and hurt adjacent tenants. Marvin: The parking, the traffic study says that there will be less, less parking and traffic required than the restaurant has with this? Scofield: Do you all have copies of that? I have a copy here that I've underlined. I think it's on page two. It's underlined. It says that the traffic impacts are less and this is when we had a larger building that required 80 spaces. And now we're down to (unintelligible). And with the standard traffic between our buildings, the traffic on the north side and the traffic in the parking lots, are all going to be, have less impact. So what they're saying is, this is a positive thing. On the second page, "the proposed retail development would result in less primary and pass -by vehicle trips over the course of a typical weekday as well as A.M. and P.M. peak hours. Going down a few sentences, "The proposed retail development is anticipated to generate less traffic then the current land use on site. Thus the traffic impacts to the site driveway and area intersections should be less than if the restaurant were to remain." Marvin: Did they know a lady's shoe store was going in? Man: Yeah, that's... Scofield: They're, they're basing that on regular retail type tenants. Marvin: Yeah. Scofield: They also said that on that north drive where um, I believe JSH quoted, "We're now 25 feet from the street" we're really 40 feet from the street if they would want to re- measure that. And the traffic people said that by taking and alining with the Ethan Allen people across the street, we imake that a safer drive. There is also a comment by them that it's a very left turn, tough left hand turn lane out of there and I think that it's pretty easy to put three lanes in there with a left turn arrow. I think that's something we should look at. There's just, there is no -30- Malina: Can I ask you something? Scofield: Can I ask you something, why you put the recycling, the dumpster enclosure where it is and why not further on down on the building on the west side of the, on the west side of the elevation? That seems like it's going to be awfully close to the middle of the, of other . retail businesses. Decker: If I can respond to that. Originally we moved it down, originally it was up north. But when I met with Moira she asked that the garbage and . recycling be together, so we moved it south. Then when we got (unintelligible) concerns, we move it back north. (Unintelligible) where it is now (unintelligible) is where the current garbage and recycle is for the Winner's Restaurant. We moved it back where that had been. Man: (Unintelligible). Man: (Unintelligible) working with the City and (unintelligible). Malina: Anything else? Arthur: Mr. Chair? Malina: Yes sir. markings there. There is no white lines or anything. So um... Arthur: If there are no additional questions from anyone, I think this is the appropriate time to make a motion. Uh, I would like to move, that we continue this public hearing to a date certain. October 23r is our next scheduled meeting. Man: All, October 26 t ''. Arthur: September 28 (unintelligible). Yeah we, the next meeting was canceled. October 23r would be the (unintelligible). Gierloff: (unintelligible) Arthur: Is that correct? Gierloff: Yes it is? Arthur: Okay. Very good, for the purpose of giving time to the developer to modify his plans so that we have something to look at. And for staff to -31 - prepare a recommendations and findings. And I would like a second to that motion and then if you, would you... Malina: First I have to close the public hearing first. Arthur: Well we want to continue it. Man: Yeah continue it. Malina: Continue the public hearing. But, I can't close this. Gierloff: (unintelligible). Arthur: Yeah. And I would like a second to the motion and if you like, I can give you about a half a dozen reasons why I think this is necessary. Malina: I, I could probably give you the other part of those reasons. But I will look for a second... Ekberg: I'll second it. Malina: As the second, or motion and a second to continue this deliberation to our October 23r our next meeting in October. Bivens: October 28 Meryhew: October 28t Malina: Okay. Gottacha. Okay. So I have a motion and second. All those in favor. Ekberg: Before we, before we go um, go on or go for that can we have a discussion? Is that allowable? Man: Well is the public part done? I didn't... Malina: The public part is going to be done, yes. Man: Could I make one last comment? Man: No, the public session is done. Man: No they are not done. If you want to. Man: (Unintelligible) close the hearing. Decker: / Um, I just make the plea, we've been delayed, we lost 30 days because we were supposed to do this last month and then I guess there wasn't a quorum. We've been working at this since last December and we can not go forward with any other - 32 - things. But we have acted in good faith working with the City. We have the plans in front of you tonight. I don't know how that old drawing got up there tonight, but we have the plans. The plans were there and I think that there's, the staff is recommending yes, subject to their conditions and uh, to loose another 30 days, it just puts tremendous hardships on us. Malina: Well I think the problem that we have here is the fact that the revision that you have provided the City, the City hasn't really had an opportunity to take a look at those revisions. Second of all staff also needs to make some additional recommendations if additional recommendations are appropriate for these changes that you've, that you've submitted. We haven't really seen a lot. We've just now taken a look at your new drawings. We really haven't spent any time. We just got the letter from, from JSH this evening. That came to us this evening also. Unfortunately the last meeting that was scheduled and we didn't have a quorum, those things are just once in a blue moon happen and trust me I've been here for a whole lot of years and I can't really count on one hand the number of times we have not had a quorum. So it was a very unusual situation that just could not be avoided. Decker: The JSH letter was written August 26t to the City. Malina: Uh the, they have this stamped this thing as received on September the 13 That's their stamp on here as receiving this on September the 13 Decker: Was that, were you on vacation at that time? I think that's, because we've had, we've had this letter a long time. Malina: Well we just got it. And it's just, it's been stamped and received, it says September the 13t Decker: Well we have acted in good faith and we'd just ask for consideration. Thank you. Malina: We understand that, but we also have to allow staff the opportunity and ourselves the /opportunity to take a look at this project and see what other recommendations the staff may have or deletions of some of the recommendations. So that... Meryhew: Maybe we could consider a meeting prior or sooner - 33 - Bivens: Man: Bivens: Meryhew: Malina: Arthur: Meryhew: Man: Meryhew: than that. We'd have to agree on that among ourselves, having a special meeting and staff being able to prepare (unintelligible) the date and time. But maybe we could move the meeting up a little bit. First of all you need, Wynetta you need a minimum of three weeks to notify for the next, for the hearing? Yes. Yes. So that would put... That subject to staff (unintelligible) October 14th. The 14 would probably be the earliest? How does that fit with everybody's schedule? Does that uh... I don't have a problem of October the 14t I would take that as a friendly amendment to my motion. Yeah, well if we reach a consensus on the 14th, that way we're trying to move this thing up and I can understand their concern about postponing the thing out further and if we can meet sooner ... All notifications will be able to be given to everyone concerned in that amount time? Well the 14 that shouldn't be a problem? Bivens: (unintelligible). Meryhew: Yeah it's whether or not staff can respond or not. Moira do you have a problem in responding by the 14t Bradshaw: Uh, we would typically mail out on the 7th, so that (unintelligible). Meryhew: It's about three weeks. Bradshaw: But it gets mailed on the 7th. Meryhew: Oh, yes. Bradshaw: % So it would have (unintelligible). Meryhew: So could you meet that requirement? Bradshaw: Uh, uh, yes. -34- Woman: Meryhew: Man: Malina: Ekberg: Malina: Ekberg: Meryhew: Arthur: Meryhew: Yeah. Arthur: (unintelligible). I think the applicant is already, they can meet the requirement. That should give Joann's and JSH time to further respond to your, to the changes and we can all meet on the 14 Yeah. Let's amend Bill's proposal to the 14 and instead of October 28 Since I seconded that motion I'll concur. All those favor. Commissioners: Aye. Malina: So proposed. Decker: Thank you very much. Man: You bet. DISCUSSION OF THE COUNCIL SCHEDULE FOR FUTURE DATES Gierloff: Would you like to give staff any direction of which any of the conditions that Moira had talked about that you might be in support of? I think that Alan had one that he probably wanted to share. (Unintelligible). Moira had some that she read off, some conditions. And uh, I think those, she's got a good start of what we're looking for. Yeah, I'd just like a complete picture from ... ..there were so many unresolved issues in the staff report. There were so many unresolved issues with the adjoining property owners. I would like those resolved and a complete picture presented that we can address. Something coming in at a time when we see it for the first time at the meeting, it's just really poor performance. And when you couple that with the fact that the "process of a public hearing was based on a certain set of plans and a certain set of conditions, and then people show up and the picture is changed, I'm not sure we followed the process of the public hearing. It's very disappointing and I think we ought to have a -35- complete picture, out to the public. And I think we ought to have a complete picture from staff to address and we do not have that tonight. This was just nothing here that I could grasp and say, well that's something that we could agree to or disagree to or modify. Waving our hands and verbalizing this and that, that does not allow us to complete something in the way need. Well you know what we need. Meryhew: Well said. Malina: I would also like to see more of the consultant firm's drawing on the street frontage. If the building were built (unintelligible) the street. I would just like to personally see that myself. I, the, at least the opportunity to see what an opportunity could be, if possible. Bradshaw: That was actually the major, the look, the layout, the site layout was a major point of discussion with the applicant. The applicant is unwilling to modify the layout of the building. And um, when staff then came back with a recommendation of not excluding the project, they made some minor modifications to the building that provided better um, flow and relationship between their proposed building and the rear buildings. And so with um, and that's the last site plan (unintelligible) that was placed before you that shows (unintelligible). And at that point staff was ready to say, ready to look at modifying uh, our recommendation. You can also go back and review the overall elevation of the building and make some other minor site improvements with landscaping (unintelligible). So I don't think that at this point, unless you'd like to provide that direction, that we're going to go back again and get any other site layouts. That the modifications in the staff report (unintelligible) will be some refinement of the overall building elevations and landscaping and paving areas. Malina: How about some of the recommendations that you have made here, these bullets? From the design that you got, this new design or this chopped off corner of the building here, has any of this been resolved from the time we (unintelligible)? Bradshaw: Yes. Yes. Malina: Okay. Bradshaw: That was, from the staff report and, that you -36- received in the mail. They provided some lighting along the frontage. They came up with a (unintelligible) that will be located on the vertical elements (unintelligible). They um, uh, they added, at the northwest corner they added a pole in the back on (unintelligible). Malina: That's the, yeah I saw that on the drawing. Bradshaw: They moved the trash and the recycling area and um, in terms of the relationship with the, between the proposed building and the existing building, that modification of their building frontage, they cut off some of the back (unintelligible) to provide some walkway and at the side added, built a glass wall and an entry and a glass wall in the rear as well. So, they also, in terms of the focal element in the northeast corner, although it will be invisible because of where it's located, they made it (unintelligible). So that's what they did... Malina: How about the ash versus the red oak? Bradshaw: Yeah, they said that was no problem. Malina: Okay. Bradshaw: They still I think would prefer to keep their front entry walk at seven feet instead of eight feet. Malina: Well that can be... Meryhew: You can work that out with them. Man: (Unintelligible) Malina: The reason that I asked for that rendering or that drawing from the consulting firm. I did a little sketch on my deal here and I was curious how close I am to what maybe your consultant... Bradshaw: They actually, they actually didn't provide any elevations for it. All we have are the layouts. Malina: Right. And that's basically what I have here too. I'm just curious to see how close I am to what I think. At any rate. Thank you. Arthur: The one that I find most interesting that I think needs resolving, just from my perspective on the building design. It says "Building should," this is from our responsibilities or the BAR review responsibilities. "Building should be �`°' -37- appropriate scale and in harmony with permanent neighboring developments." And then the response from the staff with respect to the proposal that we were provided as commissioners was "The overall height and scale are similar to surrounding buildings. However, the placement of the structure ignores the adjacent building to the southwest." And that's a similar flavor to some of the other comments here. And that's most disturbing if we follow what we are supposed to do and the BAR, things like that are not, not going to make, make it past here. Peterson: I had a question that popped up. Is there anything about the placement and the height of that building that would cause the landscaping in front of Joann's to possibly die off? Would that be part of our consideration? Bradshaw: I don't believe that it will. It basically is, is pretty shaded. It gets morning sun and uh, I forget what people were saying about Winners. Another thing that you should understand is that the building is actually coming, the ground elevation for the building is actually reduced. Malina: By at least a good five feet in height. Bradshaw: Well it will maybe be two and a half. There (unintelligible) basically. Malina: Oh, okay. Bradshaw: So um, and uh, as someone said the setback will be about 85 feet. The Alaska yellow cedar, I'd have to check. The Alaska yellow cedar and the (unintelligible) are the two trees in there. The only thing I know about (unintelligible) is that it needs a lot of water. And I'm not sure about the Alaska cedars that are there. I'll have to research that for you. Meryhew: They're, they're pretty healthy and they won't be effected by it. Bradshaw: I wouldn't imagine. Ekberg: Moira do you feel you have enough information to go forward? Bradshaw: If the, in the staff presentation that we made, there were the conclusions that we had come to at this point with the conditions that we had enumerated for you. If you sort of agree with that general direction then we will work with the -38- Ekberg: Meryhew: Bradshaw: Meryhew: Arthur: Meryhew: Malina: applicant in, in preparing documents that sort of support that and get that to you in a timely manner so that you'll have a chance to review it ahead of time. Okay. Sounds good. I think I heard the applicant say that there was basically an agreement with your recommendations anyhow. (Unintelligible). Do you want some of these new drawings and the old stuff back, `cause you're going to give us a whole new package or do you want to just toss these? You can leave them here. I'd like to get them... Yeah. `Cause the new drawings you might now have to run again. Sounds like a whole package (unintelligible). Yeah, we'll need a whole new package because it will be (unintelligible). No, I'm hanging on to my drawing. • I certify, under penalty of perjury of the laws of the State of Washington, that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my ability. Dated this 1 day of January, 2005. Transcriber 15 NAME ADDRESS CITY, STATE, ZIP PHONE bIam) has FDLtr X✓e ti2qcto 7ACp Con3 7s7iU (... 6 —0 3( Un, / S .1- kf'C° vto r � ,t-itc v /St,{�✓ )2. n /') I3ro0l / ,acke. 2. ;s- sto,,l- l3/ 17yo, . C w i i , . ,..,,4iP S e /fit , / A 4 9 S , " , / oz_. 2 O4 -sV-r ie ' / 3. 4. Po 9 -r Xt-i 4 &ljtvap Lf 2 t,> . c ZoG 6.o( -iS'S2. L . G Y - a 3 se 5. .,.�1„� i .� .,.�,, )11 .A ,- 41"-r. /1-210 }�• T • \ c•-4'A G � Y r ¶l(, �� r 24 6. q Zkl\ Z Y.u„\4.w (oci `ccc-\\L \ k c. r�101' . 7. M U 5/-(. /c3 5 1,65 rkei�= $ ¢71Lt / /.(A1 7S(2z 2eZo 3 2 a5-53:. 4 -z' 5 Z 8.1.+,,, '11 cY r7.:', t-• ,` . i r• 9. 10. 11. 12. I' J f PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING SEPTEMBER 16, 2004 Persons wishing to speak, swear or affirm to tell the truth in the testimony that they will be giving. OESE c-r 16 Exhibits from 9/16/04 Meeting ® AIME 'WM } IMRE \ Ag ora z»?2: |&: ••• ' \< \/ \ / ��� /� SC-1 RMI. 9!. rr 17 3 18 August 26, 2004 Moira Can Bradshaw City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Blvd, Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 JSH PROPERTIES, INC. Re: 17401 Southcenter Parkway — Proposed Retail Building — City of Tukwila File #L04- 036 Dear Moira, I am writing on behalf of CLPF - Tukwila, L.P., the owner of the Park Place Shopping Center which surrounds the proposed building on the West, South and North. We strongly object to the design of the proposed retail building. Unlike the existing building on the site, the proposed building would project extensively to the South in front of our building, directly in front of the entry to the existing Joann Fabrics store. This significantly blocks the visibility of the Joann Fabrics Store from Southcenter Parkway, and locates the rear of the proposed building very close to Joann's main entrance. The proposed building is 36 feet high, three times the size of the existing building, and will completely block the visibility of a large portion of our center from Southcenter Parkway. Moreover, the proposed building is unreasonably close to our existing building, which would likely create a "back alley" environment for our building and Joann Fabrics in particular. The narrow corridor would create unsafe conditions for both vehicles and pedestrians on a normal day, and might create unreasonably difficult and dangerous conditions for fire or other emergency vehicles. The proposed design of the new parking areas will also create traffic flow problems over the northern drive aisle on our property, which is also the applicant's primary access point to Southcenter Parkway. This is already a congested driveway, and left turns are very difficult at best. With the proposed main parking lot serving the new building located just 25 feet in from the street off this north drive, reasonable traffic flow is not possible. While the proposed design purports to have the same number of parking spaces on the site, the parking design is poorly conceived. The parking appears to be configured more toward maximizing the number of parking spaces on -site than adequately serving the proposed retail building. The likely effect of the new building will be to push parking off the site and onto our property. 14900 Interurban Avenue South, Suite 210 Seattle, Washington 98168 -4654 (206) 244 -2000 FAX (206) 674 -4666 We also believe that the proposed design of the building and parking areas violates the terms of one or more reciprocal easement agreements which affect our property and the applicant's property. The proposed building is outside the scope of the mutual easements established for the benefit of both property owners. Construction of the proposed building will have the effect of pushing parking from the applicant's property on to our property, significantly overburdening the parking easement over our property. Moreover, the reciprocal parking covenant was created to benefit both parcels and the safe, reasonable traffic and pedestrian flow associated with the joint parcels. This material modification to the site layout of the applicant's property relocates the primary parking field, which is easily used by customers of both owners, to a location where it would be practically usable only by customers of the applicant. Finally, we wish to draw your attention to the presence of a 48 -inch high pressure storm sewer line owned by the City of Tukwila running over our property just to the west of the applicant's westerly property line. This is not an ordinary storm drain line, but rather a large special pressurized line draining storm water from Interstate 5 down the slope behind our property. While the line is situated within an existing easement running over our property (and not the applicant's property), we note that construction of a new building too close to this line might create a health and safety risk (in the event of a break or other necessary repairs) which the City might deem unreasonable. We strongly advise against building a new building too close to the City's high pressure storm sewer line. The proposed building is ill- conceived and poorly situated on the site, is not consistent with good retail design standards, violates existing parking covenants, creates an uninviting tenant entry with no retail exposure, and raises potential life safety concerns. We respectfully request that you require the developer to redesign the building to accommodate a mutually beneficial site layout consistent with good retail design. ards, legman Senior Property Manager cc: Steve Brunette R-Nr 1 lt;6Xs 3ro& 1.64r 19 le arti4 GWR7A11 ` rs._camm�' ��i� fl ° `O �, ;;; I` i L .. . r. �yj � ' y §hd�}N! T ;. t . �:�: • /ter. Qf`I /j�l� w•nme iliorms'!sl♦ �' ∎ nnal nd•n 6 d niT • t ^rocal 0287. NEW POLE UGHT EXIST. PKG. — NOT PA OPER PART TY OF R BUT USEABLE 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1. 1 1 1 BORDERS BOOKSTORE 1 1 1 1 JOANN FABRIC 1 S 88'51'25' E NEW POT. LIGHT 1 1 1 1 1 1 27 .38' COMMON ACCESS DRIVE ESMT. EXIST. PKG. - OF P BUT USEABLE LS .3 ARCHWPATHWAY LICFT, lIP. 2nd Tnan Point of &ginning P -5 P-7 1 1 1 1 1 ■ 1 1 I 1 1 1 I p EXIST. 1 1 1 � 1 1 rn ■ Z � 1 � 1 1 1 T • Point of 1 °gin nin ' Paint A g F.H. SC -3 RETAIL BUILDING SITE AREA: 47,694sf BLDG. AREA: 18,677sf ON SITE PARKING: 79 CARS LANDSCAPE AREA: 5,550sf ± S I T E P L A N 1" = 20' -0" 17401 SOUTHCENTER PARKWAY NOTES: 1. PYLON SIGN NOT TO EXCEED 75sf PER SIDE. 2. HEIGHT OF PYLON SIGN NOT TO EXCEED 30' A.F.G. 3. SITE LIGHTING 21 WALL PACKS © 100W EACH = 2,100W 5 POLE MOUNTED SHOE BOX LIGHTS (4 400W EACH = 2,000W TOTAL. WATTS = 4,100W 4. MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE WATTS © 0:20W /SF = 5,476W 1 1 LANDSCAPE CALCULATIONS: 1 PARKING LS REQUIRED IN FRONT /SIDE 1 PARKING LS SHOWN = 2,805sf I (NOT INCLUDING 1 PARKING LS REQUIRED IN REAR = 20 \ PARKING LS SHOWN = 395s.f. 1 1 1 VICINITY MAP PYLON SIGN 20 10 0' = 60 STALLS x 15s.f. = 900s.f. 15' FRONT YD. LANDSCAPING) STALLS x 10s.f. = 200s.f. j 43, 20' _ 0 N Z Q J 0 W V) .0 J LLI N U C!) 0 sheet F— N I- 0 A1.0 0, V C L 0 � 17401 SOUTHCENTER PARKWAY 130 LAKESIDE • SEATTLE, WA 98122 • 206 325 2553 LANCE MUELLER ASSOCIATES WASHINGTON F L O O R P L A N 12'thk 8 5' -0'. PRECAST CONC. PLASTER FACE - TYP. ON EAST SIDE OF BLOC. 16' 8' 0' 8' 16' M EAST 18' 8' 0' 8' 16' STANDING SEAM M ETAL ROCFlND RECAST PARAPET TYP., PPER 1 / AZ.D ./1 bike nom 16' 8 0' 6' 16' SIGNAGE ■ �w _w ' 1■��w s� ►�� w SIGNAG wr M 1� ®! ® muim n a „I ®1i a ® ®®N 11 '� ® ® ®® ® ®1 � �' � ®w�� ®fii 1r® Imam Brigi ? ® ® .1 ..... S�® maxim :_.. nietne .... • ®�, 1111 ®®® ®11♦® .® ® ®1 ®1:1: -SO AMMO ®issau •• SIG NAGE U U_ jossommws ■1i ® ®® ® ® ®1i®md9®®r • rimmumnsieni ® ® ® ®® I= oSor»NE 86' -11 NORTH ELEVATION 16' 8' SOUTH ELEVATION 18' 8' 0' 8' 16' 0' 8 16' E L E V A T I O N '- 15' - CONCRETE PANELS W/ REVEALS, PAINT W E S T E L E V A T I O N METAL CANOPY W/ 11E ROOS, PNNT CLEAR INSULATED CLASS IN ANODIZES ALUMINUM FRAMES CERAMIC TEl PATTERN 1' - 16' -0' tV MTL COPING PRECAST CONC. PANEL 40' PRECAST CONC. PARAPET OR SHAPED FOAM PLASTIC 11' O PARAPET DETAIL SCALE: 1 -1/2" = 1' - 16' -O' 16 -0' WALL SCONCE LIGHT RII1URE - TIP. sismanwasmair sagA as t a i ^ V) z 0 I— Q LUJ -J LiJ ckS a. z cc O O -J La_ P Y 0 m u S C O 0 C C O z CL Ekf Q Z W H - W No O I U (1) sheet A2.0 20 TICOR INSURANCE 1008 WESTERNAVE.. CE CO. / • j fires v/i3TF.P.r+ AVE.. SUITE 2 .; , : WA 99301 , . „.,a I n /Inn • 0010 D 1 - - 152a050 7.90917990Z Xtlj ZZ :ZL 9002/7Z/L0 binding upon all persons, , firms, or corporations having or acquiring any interest in any portion of the Subject Property. "mortgagee" shall include "Beneficiary" under a Deed of Trust. 2. common Parking Areas. "Common Parking Area" is that area of the subject Property that is not Building Area and is devoted to parking. "Building Area" is that area of the Subject Property on which buildings, lapdsceping, ,and other improvements not devoted to parking.are now or may hereafter be locates. 3. Access, Ingress, Egress, and Parking. Each party executing this Declaration, to the extent of their respective interests in the Subject Property, grants to every other party executing this Declaration, individually and collectively, and any mortgagees, tenants, subtenants, guests „ visitors, invitees, and licensees thereof,'far the benefit of the Subject Property and each Parcel included t){erein, mutual non - exclusive easements for .access, ingress, and egress by vehicular'or pedestrian traffic for vehicular parking over and across the Common Parking Area and no barricades or structures which prevent or hinder such access, ingress, egress, and vehicular parking shall be erected or maintained, except as necessary from time to time to allow the parties to discharge their maintenance obligation hereunder. a. Maintenance of Common Parking Area. Each party executing this Declaration, to the extent of their respective interests therein, shall maintain, or cause to be maintained, that portion of the Common Parking Area on its respective Parcel or portion thereof, said maintenance to include, but not be limited to, the following: (a) maintaining the asphalt surfaces in a level, smooth, and evenly covered condition with the type of surfacing material originally installed, or such substitute as shall in all respects be equal in equality, use, and durability; (b) removing all papers, debris, filth and refuse and thoroughly swooping the area to the extent reasonably necessary to keep the area in a clean and orderly condition; (c) placing, keeping in repair, and replacing necessary or appropriate directional signs, markers, lines. any and S. Court Costs. Should suit or legal action be instituted to enforce any of the foregoing provisions, the losing party agrees to pay the substantially prevailing party its reasonable attorney fees and court costs as may be awarded by the court. f -2- /coo I000 Z961;917990Z XVi ZZ Zl 9002/DZ/l0 . CD of the Subject Property or any portion thereof whose title thereto or interest therein is acquired by foreclosure, trustee sale, or otherwise. 9. Severability. If any clause, sentence, or other portion of this Declaration shall become illegal, null, or void 'for any reason or shall be held by any court of competent jurisdiction to be so, the remaining portions hereof shall remain in full force and effect. 10. counterparts. chic Declaration may be executed in several counterparts and :hall not be effective until all the parties have executed their respective counterparts. -3- Zg617917990Z V1d Ern 9002 /t? /l0 ! L0/900 Cd1 By: DATED THIS 29:h day of December, 1989. SHIDLER /HEST FINANCE PARTNERS III, Limited Partnership By: CALIFORNIA STATE TEACHERS RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Joint SANDORPFY /MAITISON /Sl7IDf,CK Venturer' By. INVESTMENT CORPORATION By: Ito; General Partner Its: By: CALIFORNIA STATE PUBLIC ident EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Joint venturer -4 - PACIFIC NORTHWEST GROUP A By: Its; By CROW -S -H pica, Joint Venturer CD CO By: OD CD Its: C) N N vol STATE OF WASHINGTON I GS. GO COUNTY of ICI);G ) On this day peroonally appeared before The to ma known to be the individual(a) described in and who executed the within and foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that signed the same as free and voluntary act and=i7lor the uses and purposes therein mentioned. WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL HERETO AFFIXED this day of , 1989. NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Washington, residing at Hy Commission Expires: I000 Mt9b990Z XYA EZ•ZL gOOZ /trZ /LO • ri DATED THIS 29th day of December, 1989. By: Its: General partner O CD m O a, H v4 STATE of WASHINGTON COUNTY OF xING • • me. PACIFIC NORTHWEST GROUP A By: CALIFORNIA STATE TEACHERS' RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Joint venturer Ey: Its: By: CALIFORNIA STATE PUBLIC EKPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Joint Venturer By: Its: By: CRON -S -H #118, Joint Venturer • By : ■' —•-•• Its: On this day personally appeared before me , to me known to be the individual(s) described in and who executed the within and foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that signed the same as free and vo;.untary act and cede — ed for the uses and purposes therein mentioned. WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL HERETO AFFIXED this day of , 1989. NOTARY FUELIC in and for the State of Washington, residing at My Commission Expires: -a- ) Z96D917990Z XVJ CZ :V. g00Z /VZ /1.0 Ll0 /L00t SHIDLER /WEST FINANCE PACIFIC NORTHWEST GROUP A PARTNERS III, Limited Partnership By: CALIFORNIA STATE TEACHERS' RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Joint Mt • venturer By: DATED THIS 296 day of December, 1989. .Its: General Partner -4- By: Its ey: CALIFORNIA STATE PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTE'f, Joint Venturer Hy: Its By: Its: • By: CROW -S -x• #118, Joint Venturer STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) so. COUNTY OF KING ) On this day personally appeared before me to me known to be the individual(s) described in and who executed the within and foregoing instrument. and acknowledged that signed the same as free and voluntary act and deed, Zor the Use and purposes therein Mentioned. WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL HERETO AFFIXED this day of , 1989, NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Washington, residing at My Commission Expires: Z96b917990Z XVJ tZ ZI 9002/bZ/1.0 SHIDLER/IEST FINANCE PARTNERS XII, Limited Partnership I By: CALIFORNIA STATE TEACHERS' RETyENT SYSTEM, Joint Ve 8Y� • Ins: General Partner STATE OF WASHINGTON ) COUNTY of XINC • • ' DATED THIS 29eh day of December, 19e9. Is. PACIFIC NORTHWEST GROUP A By: Its. Ey: CALIFORNIA STATE PUBLIC• EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Joint Venturer Sy: Its: Ey: CRoW -s -R ilia, Joint Venturer By: Its On this day personally appeared before tae , to me )mown to be the individual(s) described in and who executed the within and foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that Signed the same as free and voluntary act and deed, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned. WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL HERETO AFFIXED this day of , 1989. NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Washington, residing at My Commission Expires: -a- Ll0 /800E I300 Z96t91799oZ XvJ fiZ :ZI 500Z /0Z/Lo cri ! .0 /Soo f j NI\Rn7,.00r•sita My appointment expires: /O1an STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ss COUNTY OF KING I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Michael Sandorffy is the person who appeared before me, end said parson eckneviedgad that he signed this instrument, on oath stated that he was authorized to execute the instrument and acknowledged it as the President of Sandorffy/fattisen /shialer .Investment Corporation, the General Partner of Shidler /Hess Finance partners III Limited Partnership, to be the free and voluntary aet of such parties for the uses and purposes mentioned in this instrument. I300 Dated: 44 a7, 1987 06:12)114.14. tc�oa A NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of was ingeon, residing at X4 o Z58V9tg9OZ XVA Y4.4L 900Z/ / l0 Ll0 /0L0QJ STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) SS. COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO) on this .2/ day of Lee.tern 6QE` , in the year 15109, before Me, - 1q 1 4*rte1 e, M. (2_410 , a notary public n and for said county and state, personally appeared e b Mgsr r , personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be t parson who executed this instrument as C ' • fi t= of BTATE OF CALIFORNIA STATE TEACHERS RETIREMEMTEn, and acknowledged to me that said public agency executed it. WITNESS my hand and official seal. orr�c�.1. sw. PATRICIA M. CEDE NOtanv oust= . cAulonnol BActirsm TO COusr! my Comm E.dren& el U. 1190 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) as. COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO) • i ) J No ary Public "3n ana ter the State of california. On this day of , in the year 1989, before me, , e notary public in and for said county and state, personally appeared , personally known to ma (or proved to me on the basic of catiatectory evidence) to to the person who executed this instrument as of STATE OF CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM, and acknowledged to me that said public agency executed it, WITNESS my hand and official seal, Notary Public in and for the State of California -5- 4 I300 Z96b9b990Z XVJ hZ Zl 900Z /bZ /L0 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ss. COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO) On this day of , in the year 19a9, before me, , a notary public in and for said county and state, personally 'appeared , personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person who executed this instrument as of STATE of CALIFORNIA STATE TEACHERS' RETIREMENT SYSTEM, and acknowledged to me that said public agency executed it. WITNESS my hand and official seal. STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) se. COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO) on this aj day of ficrrnbp2 , in the year 1989, before me, SERF1u.! FLo1e'CS , a note public n and for said count y and state, personally. appeared l f g i R,4,u2 , personally known to MG (or proved to me an the basic of satisfactory owidencsi to be ths who executed this instrument as ribItt6FlGE 1NNullMjT oiti(&JZ of STATE OF ChLIPOPJIIA PUBLIC EI1PLorres' RETIREMENT SYSTEM, and acknowledged to me that said public agency executed it. WITNESS my hand and official seal. •Lpmtninnt Russo qI ura umnoillilnniumnll immuAWa JERALI'N FLORES venal moue . sushi• MCzAM N10 COUNTY lA7 Canty is . bane lac 1,1091 uWa>anYllCYmYntfinvoUrnlinI tlIA4ulim ILDO Llo /LL0c1 Notary Public in and for the State at California d r Publ ornia -5- • n and for the state cf I300 1, zg8t t' 9oz xva grn 9oo3/tZ /L0 STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) CB. =LINTY 0F.XIMG On this day pdreanally appeared before The , to no known to be the Individual(s) deeeribed in and *he executed the within and foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that signed the some as free and voluntary act and dead, for the uses end pUrFEWWEBorain mentioned. WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL HERETO AFFIXED this .2." day of , 1989. NOTARY PUBLIC In and for the $ ore of Washington, residing -t My commission Expires: 9 If 1300 Z96V9V9Sin )( 9o0//Lo Lio /C1oZ 1 • • N, • PARCEL A: . THOSE PORTIONS OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 26, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W.M., IH KING COUIITY. WASHINGTON. ANO OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SEC NTO OE5CRI8ED AS FO SECTIN 5,3 ORT; RANGE 4 EAST, W.M. . IN KING CDUNTY, BEGINNING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 35; THENCE NORIN 87 °x5'57' WEST ALO THE NDRTH LINE OF SAID NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER A DISTANCE OF 481.05 FEET TO THE WEST MARGIN OF $0UTHC €LATER PARKWAY A5 ESTABLISHED 1N 'KING COUNTY AUDITOR'S FILE N. 6343848; THENCE SOUTH 11 °59'33" EAST ALONG SA;O WEST MARGIN A DISTANCE OF 41.27 FEST; THENCE NORTH 87'4 WEST A DISTANCE OF 210.00 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE CONTINUING NORTH G7' WEST A DISTANCE OF 1 2.11 FEET; THENCE SOUTH O 42 °30'27" WEST A DISTANCE OF 537.51 FEET TO A POINT ON A LINE THAT I5 � 19.5 FEET SOUTHWESTERLY OF THE CENTERLINE OF A 19 FOOT WIDE RAILROAO C) EASEMENT ESTABLISHED BY IRSTRUMENT RECORDED UNDER KING COUNTY AUDITOR'S O3 FILE N0. 664357 THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG A LINE WHICH IS CONCENTRIC AND N PARALLEL WITH SAID CENTERUNE ALONG A CURVE TO THE LIGHT, THE CENTER OF N WHICH BEARS NORTH 46 .EAST HAVING A RADIUS OF 429.78 FEET AN ARC N OISTANC_ OF 433.5E FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 57 °47'52 "; THENCE p) CONTINUING ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE NORTH 16 °18'55" EAST A DISTANCE OF EAS SAID SOUTH LINE A OISTANCO OF SECTION 20 10 TO MERGE THEOCENTE S CENTERLINE OF AN EISTING KIUG X COUNTT ECELVIrG NO. EM7711020221`ITHENCE NORTHR RECORDED I6 ALONG SAID CENTERLINE A DISTANCE OF 164.15 FEET; THENCE ALONG A CURVE LEFT HAVING A RADIUS OF 561.7 1 FEET. THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 15'69 "; THE)I[e NORTH 00'19'15' EAST ALONG SAID CENTERLINE A DISTANCE OF 528.93 FEET; THENCE CONTINUING ALONa CENTERLINE ON A CUR'lE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OF 410.28 FS T, ARC DISTANCE OF 229.23 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 33'24'544; THENCE LEAVING SAID CENTERLINE OF RAILROAD EASVIENTy SOUR DISTANCE OF EAST A DISTANCE OF 34.61 FEET; THENCE 50Ird 01'08'25" E'T WEST F:_7; THENCE NORTH 86' '.1ST A DISTANCE OF 274.13 FEST 70 THE W5 MARS N OF 50UTHC_NT "c.°. PARKWAY AS ESTABLISHED IN KING COUNTY AUDITOR'S FILE NO. 6343868; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG S.:10 aE57 MARGIN ON A CURVE TO THE 7 CENTER F BEARS OF 40 0 F 0 T HROUGH A CENTRAL ANG O OF OF 931. FEST A4 ARC DISTANCE 02°18' H 'ICE LEAVING SA1O WEST MARGIN OF 50UTHC:IITZR PARKWAY SOUTH T E. 85•12'2I" HEST A DISTANCE OF 182.00 Frei; THENCE SOUTH 11'59'33" EASE DISTAIICE OF 261.67 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 88'26'336" 55T 7 DISTANCE OF FEET; THENCE NORTH 11'59 ' WEST A DISTANCE OF PARK'WAY AS E ESiABLIS;IED IN KING �COUr1? �AUDITOR'S EFILE NO . t1 63428671 rT HEENCE EXHIBIT —L' 1300 3gGtrcbc90Z )(VA 9ooZ /trZ /L0 PARCEL 8: SOUTH 11 EAST ALONG SAIb WEST MARGIN AS ESTABLISHED IN KING COUNTY AUDITOR'S FILE NO. 6343857 AND ND, 6343865 A DISTANCE OF 531.16 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID WEST MARGIN NORTH 87'45'57" WEST A DISTANCE OF 210.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 11'59'33" EAST A DISTANCE OF 235.54 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; TOGETHER WITH A NON - EXCLUSIVE EASEMENT FOR INGRESS ANO EGRESS, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 35, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W.M.. IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON; THENCE NORTH 87'45'57" VEST ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER A DISTANCE OF 481.05 FEET TO THE WEST MARGIN Of SOUTHCENTER PARKWAY AS ESTABLISHED IN KING COUNTY AUDITOR'S FILE N0. 6343848; THENCE SOUTH 11'59'33" EAST ALONG SAID WEST MARGIN A DISTANCE OF 15.48 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE CONTINUING SOUTH 11'59'33" EAST ALONG SAID WEST MARGIN A DISTANCE OF 51.58 FEET; THENCE NORTH 87'45'57" WEST 256.63 FEET; THENCE NORTH 42'30'27" EAST A DISTANCE OF 32.77 FEET; THENCE SOUTH e1'45'57" EAST A DISTANCE OF 19.11 FEET; THENCE NORTH 11'59'33" WEST A DISTANCE OF 25.79 FEET: THENCE SOUTH 87'45'57" EAST A DISTANCE OF 210.00 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. EXCEPT THAT PORTION LYING WITHIN THE MAIN TRACT. THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST WARIER OF SECTION 26, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W.M „ IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE WEST LINE OF SAID SUBO:YISION DISTANT NORTH 0'50'36" EAST 519.0I FEET FROM THE SOUTHWEST CORNER THEREOF; THENCE NORTH 85•08'34" EAST 25E.03 FEET TO THE CENTERLINE OF A RAILROAD EASEMENT DESCRIBED IN INSTRUMENT RECORDED UNDER AUDITOR'S FILE NO. 77110902E; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG SAID CENTERLINE 850 FEET MORE OR LESS TO THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SUBDIVISION; THENCE NORTH 57'4517" WEST ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE TO A POINT ON A LINE WHICH IS PARALLEL WITH AND 39.00 FEET NORTHWZ3TERLY OF . THE CENTERLINE OF A 19 FOOT RAILROAD EASEMENT ESTA6lISHED BY INSTRUMENT RECORDED UNDER AUDITOR'S FILE ND. 6643573; THENCE NORTH 16'18'35" EAST ALONG 5A10 PARALLEL LINE, 92.00 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE CENTERLINE OF A 40-FOOT DRAINAGE EASEMENT GRANTED TO THE STATE OF WASHINGTON, BY INSTRUMENTS RECORDED UNDER AUDITOR'S FIL NOS. 6233E36 ANO 6235537; THENCE MONTH 50'38'32" WEST ALONG SAID DRAINAGE EASEMENT CENTERLINE 224.00 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE WEST LINE OF SAID SUBDIVISION; THENCE NORTH 0'0'36" EAST 600 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. EXCEPT THAT PORTION THEREOF LYING WITHIN HIGHWAY I -5. 1i nib! nI J I300 EXHIBIT Z561't'90Z XV3 SZ :ZL SOOZ /173 /L0 EXHIBIT B Pegs 1 RPCI 262304902402 cAN:00000 SUP :0000000 S /r.: -000000 STATUS:ACTIVE PACIFIC NORTHWEST GROUP A 529999 , PAR B LESS FOR LY VITHIN RR.R /V 5601 6T N AVE 5 101Z7/08 EsRT OF TUKWILA WPM LK AOJ SEATTLE WA 99108 R_C Af 17611290697 OAF POR ' SE 1/4 OF 5W 1/4 LY'dLY OF LOT :Z6 -23 -0A BLOCK:9026 LAST LEGAL 'SOUTNCENTER PKVY E NLY OF A LH 2S 12 0E6 SE COA SD SU80 TN N E7 -45 -57 W.A.; 5 LN 'SO. 451.05 FT TO V RCN 'SOUTHCEKTER ' PKVY TH'N 11-59 -33 Y ALS SD' . V MBN,70 ? -86 FT•T0 TPOB TN • 82 - 18 -16 V 680.15_ FT TO. V LY so SUBo' S TERM SO LN 0 RPCI 262304906601 CAN :00000 SUP:0000000 S /R: - 000000 STATUS :ACTIVE GO PACIFIC NORTHWEST• GROUP A 529999 POA•SE 1/4 OF SW 1/4 - 9EG SE • 5601 6TH AVE S 04 ' SEATTLE VA • 10/27/88 COA SD SUDO TNN 8745 -57 V 98108 481_05 FT TO V MEN SOUTHCEKTER VI v o LOT :26 -23 -04 BLOCK :9066 LAST LEGAL 'FT R TN A CONTG K ALE 30 V MEN 8 OK C e} IS 17 , TO R;T RAD 991.37•FT ARC GIST 227.29 FT, TKRU C /A' 13 -08 -08 TH - . Tk K B8- 51 -25 V 69 FT TN N 88 -51 -25 W 38 FT TH N 88 -51 -25 Y 161 FT TN H 88 -51 -25 E 272.36 FT TO W ALG SD V NoN TO POO. N 07 ■08 -35 5 76.95.9T To TPOS TN N 01 -08 -75 E 12-PT TN $ 01 -08 - 35 V 1z FT TN S 01 -08 -35 W 168 FT NGK SOUTHCENTER'PARKVAY TN MLP EXHIBIT 3 I300 ti Z98tgt990Z XV. 9Z :ZL 9002 /17Z /L0 PACIFIC ? C NORTHWEST'GROUP A 52999y0d SUP:000'OOOP 5 - 000000 5 U Ss = 5 1 /4OfSW1 /` EEC SE 5601 6TH AYE S 10/27/88 COR So SU90 TN N 87 -45 -57 V SEATTLE WA 98108 i51.05 FT To V AGM OF LOT:26 -23 -04 . BLOCK:9120 LAST LEGAL 723.43 ENTER TO R TPOB TN N 11 5 933 IS 31 N $S-2S -36 V 66.85 FT TN - S 11 - 59 -33 E 91.74 FT TH.' . N 88 V 115.17 F7 TN N 11 -39 -33 V 261.67'FT TN* N ■S -12-11 E 182 FT To V MGR �. SOUTHCENTER PARKWAY' TN SLV'AL6 • SO Y XS" ON A CURVE TO LFT CENTER BEARING k E2 - 54 - 26 E RAe 991.37 FT ARC oiST 84.78 FT THRU C/A OC 53 - 59. TN 3 11 - 59 - 33 E 105.15 FT TO TPOe TCY FOR SE 1 /4:OF SV 1/4 - DEG iS co R so SUDO TH N 37 -45 -57 V :81.05 FT TO V MGM SOUTNCENTER PARKWAY'TN N 11 - - u 630.58 ' FT TH CONTE ALE SD V RMN'0N A CURVE'TO ROT RAD 991.37 FT ARC DIST 124.72 FT THRU C/A OF' 07 - - TO T900 TH S 66 - 40 - 03 V 274.13 FT TM• N 01 - 35 E 30.66 FT TN S 80 E 272.38 FT TO V /ION SOOT kCENTER SOUTH TN SLY ALE 3o V HGK ALG•.A CURVE TO CET CENTER SIARINS N 65 -43 -26 S RAD 991.57 FT ARC DIST 9.31 FT TIM C/A • 00 -16 7a.TP05 - NPCI 2623 04 91 34 09 CAN :00 08 PACIFIC NORTHWEST GROUP A 52999 .Lit 5601 6TH AVE S SEATTLE VA Cn : LOTS26 ■23 -04 i N 87 - 45 -57 V 210 FT TN S 87 - 45-57 E 210 FT TO V RCN E 194.27 FT TO TPOD - AKA•PARCEL No BLA 8 RECORDED 7908230752 LL0 /9L0E • • EX3IBIT page 2 000 SUP:O.000000 SIX: - 000000 STATUSrACTIVE 9 POR SE 1/A OF'SV_1 /4 SEC 26 -23 -0G 10/27/88 d NE 1/4 OF NV 1/4 OF SEC 98108. 35 - 23 - 04 - 4E4 NE COR so NE 1 /4. OF NV 1/4 TH N E7 -45 -S7 V 4 8:.05 BLOCk:9134 LAST LEGAL FT To V NGH SOLTNCENTER PARKWAY 4 TS 13 TPOS TH S 11 -59 -33 E 41.27.PT TN N 11 - 69 - 33 V 235.54 FT TH SOUTNCENTER PARKWAY 79 S 11 -59-33 'A OF CITY Of TUKVILA GORY LN 40.1 ' EXHIBIT IN 1000 ZS66Sbg90Z XV1 9Z Zl SOOZ /bZ /LO AnC2 262304913508 PACIFIC NORTNUEST EROup A 5601 6TH AVE S SEATTLE' VA LOT: 2 6 -23 -0 6 N 69 -14 2.50.80 FT -TN N -54 ■41 E 75.43.FT -TH RR ESN'S TM ALE So GIL ON CURVE E RAD 410.28•FT THRU C/A •S 00-19 -15 V.20.71 FT TH LESS E•17•FT L I 0 / L 1. 0 171 BLOCK :9135 EXHIBIT H Page 3 CAM:08000 SUP :000'0000 S /M: ■000000 STATUS:ACTIVE_ 529999 • P08 5_° 1/4 OF•SV 1/4 — BEG SE 10/27/85 COR So SURD TN N 67-45 —S7 V 98108 1312.15 -FT TO SW [OR SD 5080 TH N 00 -50 -36 E 819.01 FT TO LAST LEGAL T ?02 TM COATS N 00.50-36 E 140 Z5 17 FT,TM N,60-27 -22 E 49 :5C - FT TH N 76 -14 -21 E 50.65• FT TN S 89 -11 -35 E 70.65'FT TO C/L OF To LFT CENTER BEAMING S 66 -SO -05 22-50 -40 ARC 055T•163.58 FT TM • 5 85 -08 -34 M 255.03 FT, -TO TPO3 RPcI 262304913607 CAN:00000 SUP:0000000 S /M: - 000000 STATUS: ACTIVE PACIFIC NORTHWEST EAOUP A 529999 . FOR SE 1/4 OF SW 1/4 — BEG SE 5601 6TH AVE S 10/27/58 COR SD SUED TH N 57 - -57 V SEATTLE WA 98108 1312.15 FT TO SW COR SO SUED & TP08 TN N 00 -50 E 519.01 FT LOT:26 -23 -04 3LOCK:9136 LAST ;SEAL TH N 85 - 08 - 34 E 255.03 FT To C/L 75 31 OF AR ESKT TH SLY ALS CO. TO SLY DORY 30 SURD TN WLY.ALS SD SLY BDRT TO TP06 LESS E 11FT LESS. FOR LT SLY OF P/L ESMT Tau FOR SE 1/4 of Sw 1/4 - DEC SE cog so SUDO TH N 87 -45 -5T V 1312.15 FT TO SW CoR SD sU80 TH N Do -50 -36 E 959.01 fT To TP08 TH H 60 -27 -22 E 49_54 FT TN N 69 -14 -47 E 50.80 fT TN N 7614 -Z1 E 50.45 FT TH N 93 -54-41 E 75.43 FT TM S 59 E 70.65 FT To C/C OF AR ESNT TH NLY 8 ELY ALE SD C/L TAP S 12-28 -30 2 33.38 FT•& S 04 -34-26 E 50.16 FT 6 - S 01-4139 4 56.76 FT FR A PT 280 FT FA C/L SOUTHCENTER PARKWAY 6 NLY P1GN OF SE 1/4.OF SW 114 TN N 12 -30 V 33.35 :FT TN N 04 -34 -26 V 50.16 FT TH N 01 -41-39 E 54.76 FT To ML7 MEN OF SE 114 OF sV 1/4 TM VLY'ALE SO NLY MdN TO NV COR OF SE 1/4 OF sir 1/4 TN SLY ALS WLT Mu: SO SUED TO TPOS LESS NVLT 11 FT FR C/L SD RR E_SPIT EXCEPT that portion thereof described in Exhibit A. • I. I300 EXHIBIT n8t9tS9OZ XVJ 9Z•ZL 900Z /trZ /l0 Comprehensive Plan Designation /Zoning District: City of Tukwila Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director Tukwila Urban Center NOTICE OF DECISION TO: Brad Decker, Applicant King County Assessor, Accounting Division Washington State Department of Ecology Puget Sound Clean Air Agency Catherine Drews, Foster Pepper & Shefelman Melody McCutcheon, Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson Steve Brunette, ING Real Estate Robert Icsman, Jo -Ann Stores Inc. Chuck Wiegman, JSH Properties Brad Renner, Ethan Allen Service Center Dana Moore, Ethan Allen Bob Scofield This letter serves as a notice of decision and is issued pursuant to TMC 18.104.170 on the following project and permit approval. I. PROJECT INFORMATION Steven M. Mullet, Mayor November 19, 2004 Project File Number: L04 -036 Applicant: Brad Decker, DDCI Type of Permit Applied for: Design Review Approval Project Description: Design approval for a revised one story retail building with associated site and landscape improvements. Location: 17401 Southcenter Parkway Associated Files: E04 -012 SEPA Type 4 Permit Page 1 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 H. DECISION SEPA Determination: The City SEPA Responsible Official has determined that the project, as proposed, does not create a probable significant environmental impact and issued a Determination of Non - Significance (DNS). Decision on Substantive Permit: The City Board of Architectural Review has determined that the application for a new retail building complies with applicable City and state code requirements and has approved that application based on the findings and conclusions contained in the staff reports. III. YOUR APPEAL RIGHTS The Decision on this Permit Application is a Type 4 decision pursuant to Tukwila Municipal Code 18.104.010. Other land use applications related to this project may still be pending. One administrative appeal to the City Council of the Board of Architectural Review Decision is permitted. No administrative appeal of a DNS or an EIS is permitted. IV. PROCEDURES AND TIME FOR APPEALING In order to appeal the Board of Architectural Review decision on the Permit Application, a written notice of appeal must be filed with the Department of Community Development within 21 days of the issuance of this Decision, that is by December 10, 2004. The requirements for such appeals are set forth in Tukwila Municipal Code18.116. All appeal materials shall be submitted to the Department of Community Development. Appeal materials MUST include: 1. The name of the appealing party. 2. The address and phone number of the appealing party; and if the appealing party is a corporation, association or other group, the address and phone number of a contact person authorized to receive notices on the appealing party's behalf. 3. A statement identifying the decision being appealed and the alleged errors in the decision. 4. The Notice of Appeal shall identify (a) the specific errors of fact or errors in application of the law in the decision being appealed; (b) the harm suffered or anticipated by the appellant, and (c) the relief sought. The scope of an appeal shall be limited to matters or issues raised in the Notice of Appeal. V. APPEAL HEARINGS PROCESS The City Council hearing regarding the appeal shall be conducted as a closed record hearing before the Council based on the testimony and documentary evidence presented at the open record hearing conducted by the Board of Architectural Review. The City Council decision on the appeal is the City's final decision. Type 4 Permit Page 2 Any party wishing to challenge the City Council decision on this application must file an appeal pursuant to the procedures and time limitations set forth in RCW 36.70C. An appeal challenging a DNS, an MDNS or an EIS may be included in such an appeal. If no appeal of the City Council decision is properly filed in Superior Court within such time limit, the Decision on this permit will be final. VI. INSPECTION OF INFORMATION ON THE APPLICATION Project materials including the application, any staff reports, and other studies related to the permits are available for inspection at the Tukwila Department of Community Development, 6300 Southcenter Blvd., Suite 100, Tukwila, Washington 98188 from Monday through Friday between 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. The project planner is Nora Gierloff, who may be contacted at 206 -433 -7141 for further information. Property owners affected by this decision may request a change in valuation for their property tax purposes. Contact the King County Assessor's Office for further information regarding property tax valuation changes. Department of Community Development City of Tukwila Type 4 Permit Page 3 11/21/2005 12:17 FAX 2065454952 DDCI PHONE (206) 545 -4964 FAX (206) 545 -4952 FAX TRANSMITTAL DECKER DEVELOPMENT & CONSTRUCTION, INC. 117 EAST LOUISA ST. #230 SEATTLE, WA 98102 DATE: 11/21/2005 TO: Nora Gierloff FROM: Brad Decker RE: SC 3 Retail Building at 17401 Southcenter Parkway NOTE: Nora, Please review the attached drawing. Casual male need to have (2) swing doors for their costumers. We have informed them of our design review requirements. This proposal (I believe) meets the intent of the design review requirements by keeping 3' clear when the door opens. If you have any question please call me at 206- 545 -4964. Number of Pages: (Including this Transmittal) If you do not receive all the pages of this fax, please call 206 - 545 -4964 I7j 001/003 4ve s 11/21/2005 12:17 FAX 2065454952 DDCI 2002 /003 sr 'MINN ACTIVE ACT1 -o- an • LR l TWIN DRESS r -r • -r DRESS surd DRE .1 TIC TAME II is' ate• •- , r-o' )'-r ( -r � -r r-V a '-a 1-o; r-0- '-r r-V •-r, r-o' 11M1 Trak !s� 'AICRACIc 7RADI71ONAL I2' 'Af(RACI( 1RADITIONAL II:711t1('P.m SALES AREA DR 6� •orMc c DRESS I x I DRESS I J DI11ONAL VAN TRADmONAL it -r TRAMIVN$1. 71 at'AH'Rnec TRADI710NAL Magrrill Ii 11)11P1►1:1 RARY xOUNG HEN RARY L J SWISMN 3 - Val YOUNG HENS 52' 'AMA= YOUNG MEWS x z L AlI , n Tim 1 YOt :G M NS ion Twa II 'AI4' ACII 1RADITIONAL If 'WRACK 7RADI710NAL YO -t- 11/21/2005 12:17 FAX 2065454952 DDCI r J L SN3W ON 1 � >c • SN W ON OA L SN3w 9N�IOA 1vNOUlavat NoVa.HV.. 9 1VNOL1I0VNI =Vv. WALL UNIT WALL UNIT SN311 ONf10Jl xCVa.HV..zs SN3W ONf1OA PARSONS r tN3Y4 9Nf10A AIVJ A X 7VNOLLIOd2L1 x3Va,HV..as WALL UNIT AdVel � L odtv3lNC3 ivNowava Ant :A - . j A - .Z I L 1vN01110yZu_ l67Va.Hr.A 2 003/003 PARSONS WALL UNIT SS3; )va.HY SS3Ic 1vI November 1 2005 City of Tukwila Attention: Nora Gierloff 6300 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 RE: 17401 Southcenter Parkway, Tukwila WA 98188 — Permit # D05 -008 Dear Nora, In the process of signing a 10 year lease with Famous Footwear, we encountered problems with their sign colors. We are very excited to have this prestigious upscale tenant in our building. The tenant's signage is of utmost importance to them and their sign concept is on their signs nationally. Since the blue trim and brown background would clash, we are requesting to change the teal green to light brown accent color and the blue top color to green. This will allow the colors to blend well with the light brown background behind their sign. We would like to have your permission to change the primary colors of the building. Please let us know if this is acceptable, this is a fundamental issue for our tenant. ra . r ec er Manager r ERRE LLC, EVANS LLC, & SC 3 LLC 117 EAST LOUISA STREET #230 SEATTLE, WA 98102 206 -545 -4964 10831 Canal Street Largo, FL 33777 727-541-5573 727-456-1975 (FAX) www.intisign.com 170/TO 39'd IF= 1206-431-3665 ' al l a es: ; I I i Phone g 1206-431-3670 Rate: i 10/27/05 Re: ! Famous Footwear Tukwila WA Enna ! • C 0,En 0 Urgent 0 For Review 0 Please Cerement 0 Please Reply 0 Please Recycle • Comments: ISD INTERNATIONAL I WON et DOBKIN C'TPORA IT% Good Morning, Attached are the drawings Bob Schofield asked me to send to make sure we are on the same page. We have forgone the blade sign, but the crystal vinyls in the windows are a safety issue. Famous had someone walk through the glass ( a few different locations ) so now they are up at every location.. Please give me a call to discuss.. Thank you for your time. Tb: pora Planning Supervisor 'franc Theresa @ Intl Sign & Design 0SI 517LOV9LU ES:PT SOOZ/TO/IT 2'43" DOOR VINYL DETAIL Nat SCALE: SPECIFICATIONS: TWO (2) NEW SETS OF WINDOW VINYL. ALL VINYL TO BE 3M .1 D CRYSTAL APPLIED TD SECOND SURFACE OF GLASS. WINDOW VINYL HERE. CENTER IN WINDOW HORIZONTALLY 8 30" OFF THE FINISHED FLOOR. AN SOUTH ELEVATION VW SCALE: Ers2o.1•4' LANDLORD APPROVAL O APPROVED CIAPPROVED AS NOTED LI REVISE AND RESUBMIT Signature' We. Date* O APPROVED OF FULL SCALE PATTERN REQUESTED AT LS. b D FACILITY PRIOR TO FABRICATION. Landlord's signature (above) acknowledges all specifications and dimensions as understood and correct. INTERNATIONAL SIGN & DESIGN ••■■ Ei ar: ii MM. NUM ■ ••• ■••■ 1..61 1W4 1/16' amousdFootwearr /,IETTEA DETAIL Vf SCALE: ifle' -1'•e" CODE MAX OF OAH BUILDING MEASVRE EN7 21" LXHIS601.1500 CODE ISLxH- 606x.04 +26 =ALLOWABLE SO. FT LX HIS 1541.3000 CODE IS Lx H- 600x.13+I5 ALLOWABLE SO. FT 85.013 X 21 =1902.5 10026 - 6011 = 1302.5 x .03 = 39.1 + 66 = 104.1 ALLOWABLE SQ- FT. SION 100.11 SQUARE FEET INTEGRAL EIFS THROUGH COLOR TO MATCH SHERWIN WILLIAMS, SW2766 COFFEE. EIFS THROUGH COLOR TO BE BY LANDLORD. 85'•10" LANDLORD APPROVAL 0 APPROVED 0APPROVED AS NOTED o REVISE AND RESUBMIT SIgnahxe• 'Mr Date. 0 APPROVED OF RILL SCALE PATTERN RE.OUESTEDAT I.S. S D FACILITY PRIOR TO FABRICATION. Landlord's signature (above{ acknowledges all specifications and dimensions as understood and correct. Cr INTERNATIONAL SIGN 6 DESIGN REQIARED INERT- 5TTB:I1i TII21D66 MI 1101119 r.& 61115111 11101/1/ 1111IQ 1HAT IU 111t7PI 1151 9511 1111 R1 AMA MI. SNISS 111111111111$ MIL 1111 NM MIMEO/ 111211M110 A■ IN E 610[. Q LETTER SECTION VI SCALE: N.T.S MATERIAL DESCRIPTION NI ALUMINUM RETURNS AND RACKS, FINISHTO 8E WHITE. INSIDE OF LETTEIS 10 RE WHITE AYt 1 "WHRETRIM-CAR I43 1l1 "WN111 PIER FACES, PM 1S MM 1800 WHITE NEW M5 MALE BACXELECTRODES WITH UL APPROVED EIECrRODE OD015 AND 15010 VOLT GTD WIRE. MS STANOARI TUBE SUPPORTS. M7 1/4" WEEP HOLES AS REMIS E0. Me MOUNTING HARDWARE (TYPE OEPINOS ON WALL CONSTRUCTION). M9 V2" nix CONDUIT M10 30 SSA. P RMALPDWERFACTORTRAN5RIAE RS IGROUND FAULTPRDTECTED MD 21 O1 U.L APPRDVEDI. NI I 1 o AMR DISCDNNECT S W RU1• Mit PRIMARY ELECTAICALLEAOS. MIS METAL TRANSFORMER BOXES, tttII1115011153 TD BE DETERMINED 1120 VOLT) ki 4 IL • 11 Ng ii 30'4 VIC mous Footwear AN LETTER DETAIL SCALE: VW =1' - 0' CODE MAX OF OAH BUILDING MEASUREMENT 21' L X HIS 501.1590 CODE IS L x H -BOO x .04 + 25 - ALLOWABLE SQ. FT 1 X H IS 1501 -3000 CODE 59 L x H - 500 x .03 + 05 = ALLOWABLE SCI FT 94.915X21 =1082.74 1982.74 - 600 = 1482.74 x .03 = 44.5 + 65 = 109.6 ALLOWABLE SO. Ft SIGN 100.11 SQUARE FEET INTEGRAL EIFS THROUGH COLOR TO MATCH SHERWIN WILLIAMS, SW2166 COFFEE . EIFS THROUGH COLOR TO BE BY LANDLORD. AN EAST ELEVATION SCALE: 3t3ra1 94' -11" LANDLORD APPROVAL OAPPROVED 0 APPROVED AS NOTED O REVISE AND RESUBMIT Signature: Title: Date' CAPPROVED OF FULL SCALE PATTERN REQUESTED AT LS. D D FACIUTY PRIOR TO FABRICAYION. Landlord's signature (above) acknowledges all specifications and dimensions as understood and correct. ® INTERNATIONAL SIGN Et DESIGN 0SA WI a! ■1111M 111•111 . ■111111111, non Famous Footwear. 1P111, 1•11111111111 • I R1111aU1111raUUUIUI . .I-. iiiiE • • iii MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Mt ALUMDIUM RETURNS AND BACKS, FINISHTO REWRITE. INSIDE DFLETTERSTO REWHIIE. I' WHITE TRIM-CAR itrWRITE PLEXFACES. IS MM 15011 WHRENEDN. CoUs E BACK ELECTRODES WITH ILL APPROVED ELECTRODE 60015 AND 15000 VOU GTD WIRE STANDARI TIME SUPPORTS. VI" WEEP HOLES AS BEMIRED. MOUNTING HAROWARE(TYPE DEMOS ON WALL CONSTRUCTION. 112" FLEX CONDLKr. 30 MA. NORMAL POWER FACTOR TRANSFORMERS (RROUNO FAIJLTPROTIICIED AND 2161 U.L APPROVER). 20 AMP. DSCOONJECT SWITCH. FRMIARY ELECTRICAL LEADS. METAL TRANSFORMFABOXES. M2 M3 M4 AIS MR M7 MR MA MI0 R111 R112 M11 4%51 IJSR: 1:5551 O LEITER SECTION SCALE: N.T.S. 4 d I i .111; :1 1+ il 117• •,1i,'; 1,�Lt SHIRTS RSDmRB TO BE DETERMINED 1120 VOLT) QZ 2ta —N 11 a i1 August 19, 2005 Brad Decker DDCI 117 East Louisa Street #230 Seattle, WA 98102 RE: Request for Minor Modification to L04 -036, D05 -008 Dear Brad, This letter is in response to your 8/16/05 request for additional minor modifications to the design of the SC3 retail building at 17401 Southcenter Parkway. The design for that site was approved by the Board of Architectural Review under file L04 -036. I have previously reviewed and granted approval for modifications related to the settlement of the appeal of your project by CPLF and JoAnn Stores. Your current request is to replace the colored concrete walkways with an exposed aggregate finish and replace the automatic sliding doors with standard double swinging doors. These items were discussed at length in the staff reports and at the Board of Architectural Review hearings. You have not presented any reasons for the change that you could not have raised during the project review. Therefore I cannot justify revising the plans approved by the Board. I will place a copy of this letter in the design review file. If you have any additional questions or comments, please call me at (206) 431 -3670. Sincerel -, Nora Gierloff Planning Supervisor Q: \SC31MinorMod2.DOC City of Tukwila Steven M. Mullet, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 August 16 2005 City of Tukwila Nora Gierloff 6300 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 RE: DO5 -008 ADRESS: 17401 Southcenter Parkway Dear Nora, We would like to formally request a modification to our current permit. The request is to replace the colored concrete with an aggregate concrete finish on all concrete walkways, except in the driveway and replace automatic sliding doors with standard retail (2) 3' by 7' double acting doors on the west side in three locations. The colored concrete shows dirt and discoloration very easily. This will create a large maintenance problem. The aggregate finish is easily maintained and has proven to be a good sidewalk surface. It is very important to keep our center in good condition. Our Tenants have been very concerned about being required to have automatic sliding doors. They have expressed there concern about the loss of heat during the winter, the loss of air conditioning during the summer and the excess power drain when the doors open as people are walking by. Thank you for your consideration. Brad Decker Manager ERRE LLC, EVANS 10 LLC & SC 3 LLC 117 EAST LOUISA STREET # 230 SEATTLE, WA 98102 (206) 545 -4964 July 29, 2005 Brad Decker DDCI 117 East Louisa Street #230 Seattle, WA 98102 RE: Minor Modification to L04 -036 Dear Brad, City of Tukwila Steven M. Mullet, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director This letter is in response to your request for a minor modification to the design of the SC3 retail building at 17401 Southcenter Parkway. The design for that site was approved by the Board of Architectural Review under file L04 -036. I have reviewed your revised site plan and building elevations submitted under permit D05 -008, see attached. You have proposed changes to the building and site design in order to settle an appeal of the design review approval. I have noted the following changes from the BAR approved design: ❑ The building has been reduced in size, with approximately 27 feet removed from the southern end of the building. ❑ The building design has been largely preserved with the three main roof forms simply moved closer together. ❑ Parking has replaced the area at the south end of the site that was formerly occupied by the building and a plaza. ❑ The parking aisle on the adjacent property to the south has a cut through to allow access to the new parking area, instead of being continuous. ❑ Minor changes to curbing and landscape islands on the property adjacent to your site have been made to provide a seamless integration of improvements. The most significant is the removal of the barrier through the aisle of parking along the eastern edge of the site, adjacent to Southcenter Parkway. ❑ The pylon sign for the adjacent property is proposed to be moved to the north. This will require a separate permit. Overall I find that the proposed changes create a more consistent and integrated design and provide better pedestrian and automobile circulation. In context with the scale of the Q:\SC3\Sc3MinorMod.DOC 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 L04 -036 Page 2 project these changes will be considered a minor modification to the design review approval and therefore approved administratively by this letter. I will place a copy of this letter and the revised design in the design review file. If you have any additional questions or comments, please call me at (206) 431 -3670. Sincerel Nora Gierloff Planning Supervisor Enclosure. CC: Catherine Drews Melody McCutcheon Steve Brunette Robert Icsman Chuck Wiegman Brad Renner Bob Scofield Dana Moore Joshua Brower Henry Jameson Brad Decker Richard Noonan Lance Mueller Foster Pepper & Shefelman Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson ING Real Estate Jo -Ann Stores Inc. JSH Properties Ethan Allen Service Center SC3 Ethan Allen Mentor Law Group Jameson Babbitt Stites & Lombard DDCI Jo -Ann Stores Lance Mueller & Assoc. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 << 5 SI-C)PE w EEL STOP . TYP. 2 PACES HC SYMBOL & SIGN RE: 6 & 7/A1.1 - BUFF -TONE- CONCRETE WALK WITH TOOLED U JOINTS NEW POLE— LIGHT (15 PYLON SIGN NEW POLE LIGHT RE: 15/A1.2 NEW POLE LIGHT 1 1 1 1 1 1 MATCH LANDSCAPE ACROSS ESMT. DR- 1 � D t � t • + COMMON ACCESS RIVE ESMT. 4 ' NOTE: GROUND AND BUILDING MOUNTED UTILITIES I LOCATED AND SCREENED TO MINIMIZE" THEIR I APPEARANCE IN THE LANDSCAPF EXIST. PKG. - NoT A nnnr LS = 3 8 sf PLAZA AREA TO EXIS P PR1 6 FLUSH W/ EXIST. PAVEMENT (3/A1.1) s. NEW LIGHT .6 SIGNAGE 0 SIGNAGE IMMEMEMPIONINIMMIENNEM K w� t atu - INEREERMINEMIZEMINEHMEINIMMESIMENIEN IE IME_ZEMEMENIME IMEISEEENI IIMEMENIEE mom. qua _ _.d,Y oats ELE VAT 10' AST W S T RECYCLE & DUMPSTER ENCLOSURE, �`!� PRECAST PARAPET TYP., P ER 1/A2.0 RAISED MTL. DOOR TO BE PAINTED TRELLIS BODY COLOR (TYP.) ELEVATIo\ STANDING ROOFING SEAM ‘ WALL SCONCE LIGHT FIXTURE - TYP. 1" = 16' -0 1" = 1 NAME COMPANY ADDRESS ADDRESS 2 CITY, STATE, ZIP Catherine Drews Foster Pepper & Shefelman 1111 3rd Av. Suite 3400 Seattle, WA 98101 Melody McCutcheon Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson 500 Galland Building 1221 2nd Av Seattle, WA 98101 -2925 Steve Brunette ING Real Estate 1001 Fourth Av. Suite 3040 Seattle, WA 98154 Robert Icsman Jo -Ann Stores Inc. 5555 Darrow Road Hudson, OH 44236 Chuck Wiegman JSH Properties 14900 Interurban Av S Suite 210 Tukwila, WA 98168 -4654 Brad Renner Ethan Allen Service Center 20120 72 Av. S. Kent, WA 98032 Bob Scofield 4212 Hunts Point Road Bellevue, WA 98004 Dana Moore Ethan Allen 17333 Southcenter Py. Tukwila, WA 98188 Joshua Brower Mentor Law Group 1100 Market Pl. Tower 2025 1st Ave. Seattle, WA 98121 Henry Jameson Jameson Babbitt Stites & Lombard 999 3rd Ave., Suite 1900 Seattle, WA 98104 -4001 Brad Decker DDCI 117 East Louisa Street #230 Seattle, WA 98102 Richard Noonan Jo -Ann Stores 2515 4th Ave Seattle, WA 98121 Lance Mueller Lance Mueller & Assoc. 130 Lakeside Ave Seattle, WA 98122 Jam Free Printing Use Avery TEMPLATE 5160® Catherine Drews Foster Pepper & Shefelman 1111 3rd Av. Suite 3400 Seattle, WA 98101 Robert Icsman Jo-Ann Stores Inc. 5555 Darrow Road Hudson, OH 44236 Bob Scofield 4212 Hunts Point Road Bellevue, WA 98004 Henry Jameson Jameson Babbitt Stites & Lombard 999 3rd Ave., Suite 1900 Seattle, WA 98104 -4001 Lance Mueller Lance Mueller & Assoc. 130 Lakeside Ave Seattle, WA 98122 ®09LS ®A?I3AV Melody McCutcheon Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson 500 Galland Building 1221 2nd Av Seattle, WA 98101 -2925 Chuck Wiegman JSH Properties 14900 Interurban Av S Suite 210 Tukwila, WA 98168 -4654 Dana Moore Ethan Allen 17333 Southcenter Py. Tukwila, WA 98188 Brad Decker DDCI 117 East Louisa Street #230 Seattle, WA 98102 A213AV-OD-008 WOYAJane•MMM www.avery.com 1- 800-GO -AVERY Steve Brunette ING Real Estate 1001 Fourth Av. Suite 3040 Seattle, WA 98154 Brad Renner Ethan Allen Service Center 20120 72 Av. S. Kent, WA 98032 Joshua Brower Mentor Law Group 1100 Market Pl. Tower 2025 1st Ave. Seattle, WA 98121 Richard Noonan Jo -Ann Stores 2515 4th Ave Seattle, WA 98121 C A AVERY® 5160® ®09LS 31V1dW31 ®tiaAV ash 6UPuud 118.11 we f May 24, 2005 Brad Decker DDCI 117 East Louisa Street #230 Seattle, WA 98102 RE: SC -3 Retail Building Sign Dear Brad, I am writing to respond to your request to clarify the allowed size of the freestanding sign for the SC -3 Retail Building at 17401 Southcenter Boulevard. We will give you credit for the 40 feet of frontage between the two SC3 parcels. This will allow you to qualify for a 75 square foot freestanding sign, with no more that 150 square feet for all sides. You must still apply for a sign permit and meet all sign code requirements. If you have any questions please call me at (206) 431 -3670. Sincere y, Nora Gierloff Planning Supervisor Q: \SC3 \SignSize.DOC City of Tukwila Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director Steven M. Mullet, Mayor 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 PHONE (206) 545 -4964 FAX (206) 545 -4952 TRANSMITTAL DATE: 5/20/2005 TO: Nora Gierloff FROM: Brad Decker RE: 17401 Southcenter Parkway NOTE: Nora, Please review our request to have a 75 square foot free standing sign. We are working with ING and Jo -Ann Stores, Inc. to resolve the appeal. They may be willing to work with us, if required by the City of Tukwila on the free standing sign. That is why we need to get your ruling on our request to have a 75 square foot free standing sign. If you have any question please call me at 206 -545 -4964. Manager ERRE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY 117 EAST LOUISA ST. #230 SEATTLE, WA 98102 April 19, 2005 Brad Decker DDCI 117 East Louisa Street #230 Seattle, WA 98102 RE: 17401 Southcenter Boulevard D05 -006 Winners Demolition D05 -008 SC -3 Retail Shell Construction Dear Brad, I am writing to clarify the City's position on your current development permit applications. We have approved your demolition and grading permit D05 -006. We will process your development permit D05 -008 and approve it when our review is complete. If you choose to delay picking up the permits please be aware of the expiration deadline of 7/6/05 for both permits. Acting on those permits to clear the site and begin construction is at your own risk. As you know, this matter is on appeal to the Superior Court and is not resolved. If the Court remands the case back to the Board of Architectural Review you may be required to submit revisions to D05 -008 and revise the building. If you do decide to begin site work, but not building construction, prior to a resolution of the design review appeal, please plan on leaving the site in finished condition. For example seeding or sodding the site rather than just leaving it with straw and a silt fence until the building construction begins. If you have any questions please call me at (206) 431 -3670. Sincerel Nora Gierloff Planning Supervisor City of Tukwila Steven M. Mullet, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director Cc: Brenda Holt, Permit Coordinator 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 Mentor Law Group PLLC 1100 Market Place Tower TEL 206.493.2300 • Via U.S. First Class Mail City of Tukwila C/ o Tukwila City Clerk 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 Brad and Laura Decker C/o 3302 Fuhrman Ave. E, Suite 110 Seattle, WA 98102 Evans 10 Limited Liability Company C/o Brad Decker, its Registered Agent 3302 Fuhrman Avenue East, Suite 110 Seattle, WA 98102 Enclosure Cc: Robert Icsman C:s5, bc RECEIVED APR 1 5 2005 • 2025 First Avenue • Seattle, Washington 98121 CI�YOFTUKWI�q FAX 206.493.2310 CITY CLERK Apri114, 2005 Jennifer Symms direct 206.493.2305 symms@ mentorlaw.com SC3, LLC C/o Christian Shcfield, Its Registered Agent 117 East Louisa Street, Suite 230 Seattle, WA 98102 CLPF - Tukwila, L.P. C/o Melody McCutcheon Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson 1221 Second Avenue, Suite 500 Seattle, WA 98101 -2925 RE: Jo-Ann Stores, Inc. v. City of Tukwila, et al. King County Superior Court No. 05- 2- 118954 KNT Dear Parties Enclosed, please find a copy of the Case Schedule Order for the Land Use Petition Act appeal filed April 8, 2005, on behalf of Jo-Ann Stores, Inc. This matter is set before the Honorable Andrea Darvas, at the King County Regional Justice Center in Kent. Sincerely, MENTOR LAW GROUP, PLLC SYMMS ARALEGAL 1 VS IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF KING JO -ANN STORES, INC. CITY OF TUKWILA, ET AL • 23 FILE DATE: 04 /08/2005 TRIAL DATE: 09/12/2005 Petitioner(s) Respondent(s) Print Name Sign Name RECEIVED APR 1 5 2005 CITY OF TUKWILA CITY CLERK NO. 05- 2- 11895 -4 KNT Order Setting Case Schedule (Land Use Petition - RCW 36.70C) ( *ORSCS) ASSIGNED JUDGE Darvas etibon See Ong ' eview of a - n • se • eciston under the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 36.70C has been filed in the King County Superior Court and will be managed by the Case Schedule on Page 3 as ordered by the King County Superior Court Presiding Judge. 1. NOTICES THE PERSON (PETITIONER) SEEKING REVIEW OF A LAND USE DECISION MUST: 1 File a Land Use Petition within the time frames as instructed by applicable RCW 36.70C.040. 2. Serve a copy of the Land Use Petition and this Order Setting Case Schedule (Land Use Petition) (including these Notices) on all other parties to this action. You, as the person who started this Petition, must make sure the other person and/or agency is notified of your action and gets a copy of the Schedule. See Revised Code of Washington RCW 36.70C.040(5). Your signature must appear on this form showing that you understand that you must make sure the other person and/or agency gets a copy of this form. 3. Pay the statutory filing fee to the Clerk of the Superior Court in which the Petition is filed. NOTICE TO ALL PARTIES: All attorneys and parties should make themselves familiar with the rules of the court — especially those referred to in this Schedule. In order to comply with the Schedule, it will be necessary for attorneys and parties to pursue their appeals vigorously from the day they are filed. All events must occur promptly. If they are late, the Superior Court Clerk is authorized by the King County Superior Court Local Rules to schedule the petition for a dismissal hearing. "I understand that 1 am required to give a copy of •• : se docum = n 1 • • arties In this case." \o5ieva 2owe _ Order Setting Case Schedule (Land Use Petition - RCW 36.70C) ('ORSCS) REV. 6/200 1 I. NOTICES (continued) STIPULATION/MOTION TO CHANGE INITIAL HEARING: Parties may file a stipulation or any party may file a motion to change the initial hearing prior to the deadline as shown on the Schedule. A copy of the stipulation or motion must be filed with the assigned Judge. Preliminary hearings must be set on Fridays. Stipulated change of hearing dates must be within +/- 7 days of the original date and must be approved by the assigned judge. MOTIONS ON JURISDICTIONAL AND PROCEDURAL ISSUES: Motions on jurisdictional and procedural issues shall comply with Civil Rule 7 and King County Local Rule 7, except that the minimum notice of hearing requirement shall be 8 days. PENDING DUE DATES CANCELED BY FILING PAPERS THAT RESOLVE THE CASE: When a final decree, judgment, or order of dismissal of all claims is filed with the Superior Court Clerk's Office, and a courtesy copy delivered.to the assigned judge, all pending due dates in this Schedule are automatically canceled, including the scheduled Trial Date. It is the responsibility of the parties to 1) file such dispositive documents within 45 days of the resolution of the case, and 2) strike any pending motions by notifying the bailiff of the assigned judge. Parties may also authorize the Superior Court to strike all pending due dates and the Trial Date by filing a Notice of Settlement pursuant to KCLR 41, and forwarding a courtesy copy to the assigned judge. If a final decree, judgment or order of dismissal of all claims is not filed by 45 days after a Notice of Settlement, the case may be dismissed with notice. If you miss your scheduled Trial Date, the Superior Court Clerk is authorized by KCLR 41(b)(2)(A) to present an Order of Dismissal, without notice, for failure to appear at the scheduled Trial Date. NOTICES OF APPEARANCE OR WITHDRAWAL AND ADDRESS CHANGES: All parties to this action must keep the court informed of their addresses. When a Notice of Appearance/Withdrawal or Notice of Change of Address is filed with the Superior Court Clerk's Office, parties must provide the assigned judge with a courtesy copy. NOTICE OF NON - COMPLIANCE FEES: ALL parties will be assessed a fee authorized by King County Code 4.71.050 whenever the Superior Court Clerk must send notice of non-compliance of schedule requirements as per Local Rule 4 and/or dismissal of actions as per Local Rule 41. King County Local Rules are available for viewing at www.metrokc.govikcscc. Order Setting Case Schedule (Land Use Petition - RCW 36.70C) ( *ORSCS) REV. 6/200 2 CASE EVENT DEADLINE or Filing EVENT DATE Needed Petition for Review of Land Use Decision Filed and Schedule Issued [See RCW 36.70C.0401. Fri 04/08/2005 * DEADLINE to Contact Assigned Judge to Confirm Initial Hearing [See RCW 36.70C.080]. Fri 04/15/2005 DEADLINE to Stipulate or File a Motion for Change of Hearing Date or Adjustment of Schedule [See RCW 36.70C.080(1); RCW 36.70.090). Fri 05/06/2005 * Initial Hearing on Jurisdictional and Preliminary Matters (FRIDAYS ONLY) [See RCW 36.70C.080)]. Fri 05/27/2005 DEADLINE for Filing Certified Copy of the Local Jurisdiction Record [See RCW 36.70C.110]. Mon 07/11/2005 * DEADLINE for filing Brief of Petitioner [See RCW 36.700.080(4)]. Mon 08/08/2005 * DEADLINE for filing Brief of Respondent [See RCW 36.70C.080(4)]. Mon 08/29/2005 * DEADLINE for filing Reply Briefs [See RCW 36.70C.080(4)]. Tue 09/06/2005 * Review Hearing/Trial Date [See RCW 36.70C.090]. Mon 09/12/2005 DATED: 04 /08/2005 11. CASE SCHEDULE III. ORDER Pursuant to the Revised Code of Washington (RCW 36.70C) the King County Superior Court issues an Order Setting Case Schedule (Land Use Petition) when a Land Use Petition is filed with the King County Superior Court. It is ORDERED that all parties involved in this action shall comply with the schedule listed above and that failure to meet these event dates will result in the dismissal of the petition. It is FURTHER ORDERED that the party filing this action must serve this Order Setting Case Schedule (Land Use Petition) and attachment on all other parties. 12u4.04 6.&:eze PRESIDING JUDGE Order Setting Case Schedule (Land Use Petition - RCW 36.700) ( *ORSCS) REV. 6/200 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON JO -ANN STORES, INC., an Ohio Corporation, v. Petitioner, CITY OF TUKWILA, a Washington municipal corporation, BRAD DECKER AND LAURA R. DECKER, a marital community; EVANS 10 LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, a Washington limited liability company; SC3 LLC, a Washington limited liability company, and CLPF- TUKWILA, L.P., a Washington limited partnership. I certify that on April 14, 2005, I Order issued to Petitioner Jo -Ann Stores, be served on the following persons via the City of Tukwila C/o Tukwila City Clerk 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 Res s ondents. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE FOR KING COUNTY 1 APR 1 5 2005 CITY OF TUKWILA CITY CLERK No. 05 -2- 11895 -4 KNT CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE caused copies of the Case Schedule Inc. in the above - captioned matter to method indicated: ❑ Overnight Delivery via Fed Ex ® First Class Mail via USPS ❑ Hand - Delivered via Messenger ❑ Facsimile ❑ Electronic mail to Mentor Law Group, PLLC 1100 Market Place Tower 2025 First Avenue Seattle, Washington 98121 TEL 206.493.2300 FAX 206.493.2310 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Brad Decker and Laura R. Decker C/o 3302 Fuhrman Ave. East, Suite 110 Seattle, WA 98102 Evans 10 Limited Liability Company C/o Brad Decker, its Registered Agent 3302 Fuhrman Avenue East, Suite 110 Seattle, WA 98102 SC3, LLC C/o Christian Shcfield, its Registered Agent 117 East Louisa Street, Suite 230 Seattle, WA 98102 CLFP - Tukwila, L.P C/o Melody McCutcheon Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson 1221 Second Avenue, Suite 500 Seattle, WA 98101 -2925 ❑ Overnight Delivery via Fed Ex ® First Class Mail via USPS ❑ Hand - Delivered via Messenger ❑ Facsimile ❑ Electronic mail to ❑ Overnight Delivery via Fed Ex ❑ First Class Mail via USPS ❑ Hand - Delivered via Messenger ❑ Facsimile ❑ Electronic mail to ❑ Overnight Delivery via Fed Ex ® First Class Mail via USPS ❑ Hand - Delivered via Messenger ❑ Facsimile ❑ Electronic mail to ❑ Overnight Delivery via Fed Ex ® First Class Mail via USPS ❑ Hand - Delivered via Messenger ❑ Facsimile ❑ Electronic mail to I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the state of Washington that the foregoing true and correct. Executed on this 1' - - day of April 2005, in Seattle, Washington. MENTOR LAW GROUP, PLLC CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ly,to Kate Anderson Administrative Assistant Mentor Law Group, PLLC 1100 Market Place Tower 2 2025 First Avenue Seattle, Washington 98121 TEL 206.493.2300 FAX 206.493.2310 vs. CLPF - TUKWILA, L.P., a Washington limited partnership, CITY OF TUKWILA, a Washington municipal corporation; BRAD DECKER AND LAURA R. DECKER, a marital community; EVANS 10 LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, a Washington limited liability company; SC3 LLC, a Washington limited liability company, and JO -ANN STORES, INC., an Ohio corporation; Res•ondents. Certificate of Service - Page 1 of 2 COPY IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF WASHINGTON FOR KING COUNTY 2KNT NO. Petitioner, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Karen A. Therese, am a legal secretary for the law firm of Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson, P.S., 500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98101. I hereby certify that on April 8, 2005, I caused true and correct copies of Land Use Petition, Summons, Order Setting Case Schedule, Case Assignment Designation and Case Information Cover Sheet, and this Certificate of Service to be served upon the following at the addresses and in the manner listed below. HILLIS CLARK MARTIN & PETERSON, P.S. 500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Ave Seattle WA 98101 -2925 206.623.1745; fax 206.623.7789 rctvtiv U APR ..1 1 115 CITY OF TU I LA CITY CLE K APR j_ r 2005 bEVEL pN y MENT Office of the City Clerk City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 Via Legal Messenger SC3 LLC c/o Christian Schofield Registered Agent 117 E. Louisa Street Suite 230 Seattle, WA 98102 Via First Class Mail Evans 10 Limited Liability Company c/o Brad Decker Registered Agent 3302 Fuhrman Avenue E. Suite 110 Seattle, WA 98102 Via First Class Mail Sarah Mack Joshua Brower Mentor Law Group PLLC 2025 1 Avenue, Suite 1100 Seattle, WA 98121 Via First Class Mail Brad Decker and Laura R. Decker 117 E. Louisa Street Suite 230 Seattle, WA 98102 Via First Class Mail DATED this 8th day of April, 2005. #299968 18438 -002 6fgg011.doc 4/08/05 Certificate of Service - Page 2 of 2 SC3 LLC 3302 Fuhrman Avenue E. Suite 110 Seattle, WA 98102 Via First Class Mail Jo -Anns Stores, Inc. c/o Robert D. Icsman Senior Legal Counsel 5555 Darrow Road Hudson, OH 44236 Via First Class Mail I certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington and the United States and that the foregoing is true and correct. Karen A. Therese HILLIS CLARK MARTIN & PETERSON, P.S. 500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Ave Seattle WA 98101 -2925 206.623.1745; fax 206.623.7789 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 CLPF - TUKWILA, L.P., a Washington limited partnership, VS. CITY OF TUKWILA, a Washington municipal corporation; BRAD DECKER AND LAURA R. DECKER, a marital community; EVANS 10 LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, a Washington limited liability company; SC3 LLC, a Washington limited liability company, and JO -ANN STORES, INC., an Ohio corporation; Summons - Page 1 of 2 Res ndents. • COPY CE klaretwc ASR 0 g 2005 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF WASHINGTON FOR KING COUNTY Petitioner, SUMMONS 2•.11803•2Ki RECEI ED APR 1 1 005 CITY OF TU i ILA CITY ° K THE STATE OF WASHINGTON TO: RESPONDENTS 1. A lawsuit has been started against you in the above - entitled court by the Petitioner. 2. Petitioner's claim is stated in the written complaint, a copy of which is served upon you with this summons. 3. In order to defend against this lawsuit, you must respond to the complaint by stating your defense in writing, and serve a copy upon the undersigned person within 20 days (if service is made on you within the state of Washington), or within 60 days (if service is HILLIS CLARK MARTIN & PETERSON, P.S. 500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Ave Seattle WA 98101 -2925 206.623.1745; fax 206.623.7789 h made on you outside the state of Washington), after the date of service on you of this summons, excluding the day of service, or a default judgment may be entered against you without notice. A default judgment is one where the Plaintiffs may be entitled to what is asked for because you have not responded. 4. If you serve a notice of appearance on the undersigned person you are entitled to notice before a default judgment may be entered. 5. If not previously filed, you may demand that the Plaintiffs file this lawsuit with the court. If you do so your demand must be in writing and must be served upon the undersigned person. Within 14 days after you serve your demand, the Plaintiffs must file this lawsuit with the court, or the service on you of this summons and complaint will be void. 6. If you wish to seek the advice of a lawyer in this matter, you should do so promptly so that your written response, if any, may be served on time. 7. This summons is issued pursuant to Rule 4 of the Civil Rules for Superior Court of the State of Washington. DATED this 5 day of April, 2005. #300121 18438 -002 6fkp01!.doc 4/07/05 Summons - Page 2 of 2 HILLIS CLARK MARTIN & PETERSON, P.S. By �Gti A Melody B. McCutcheon, WSBA #18112 Brian C. Free, WSBA #35788 Attorneys for Petitioner CLPF - Tukwila, L.P. HILLIS CLARK MARTIN & PETERSON, P.S. 500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Ave Seattle WA 98101 - 2925 206.623.1745; fax 206.623.7789 G. Richard Hill 2025 First Avenue, Suite 1130 Seattle, WA 98121 206.448.1818 206.448.3444 fax rich@mhfks.com March 17, 2005 Nora Gierloff City of Tukwila Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 -2599 Re: 17401 Southcenter Parkway Dear Ms. Gierloff: Brad Decker has asked me to follow up on the sign issue for the 17401 Southcenter Parkway proposal (Proposal). We ask the Department of Community Development (DCD) to approve a 75 sq. ft. sign. You are of course familiar with the City's sign ordinance. At TMC 19.32.140.D, it authorizes freestanding signs in commercial zones. If the street frontage is up to 200 ft., then the sign area is limited to 50 sq. ft. If the street frontage site is between 200 and 400 ft., the sign area may be up to 75 sq. ft. The term "street frontage" is not defined in the Code. I do not believe there is ambiguity as to the meaning of "street." In this case, it undoubtedly refers to Southcenter Parkway. The term "frontage" is defined in The American Heritage Dictionary as follows: 1.a. The front part of a piece of property. b. The land between a building and a street. Under either of these two definitions, the "street frontage" of the 17401 property exceeds 200 feet in length. In the case of the 17401 property, there are 199.24 ft. of land actually abutting Southcenter Parkway. If there is an additional mere .76 of a ft. (nine inches) of frontage, then the Proposal is entitled to a 75 sq. ft. sign. In addition to the 199.24 ft. of land actually abutting Southcenter Parkway, the Proposal has an additional 131.74 ft. of frontage. G: \Decker Development \926.001 \Corr \bradshaw0l.doc A Professional Service Corporael on Nora Gierloff March 17, 2005 Page 2 of 2 This includes the 91.74 southerly ft. of the 17401 property that "fronts" Southcenter Parkway, but does not immediately abut it. Under the definition of "frontage" identified above, these 91.74 southerly ft. constitute frontage — they are a portion of "the front part" of the property, and they are a portion of the "land between a building and a street." It should also be noted that the parking area to the east of these 91.74 ft. and to the west of Southcenter Parkway is subject to a "no- build" zone. Therefore, the Proposal will retain direct visual access to Southcenter Parkway across that parking area. In addition, the common access drive easement to the north of the Proposal is 40 ft. in width. This is also part of the Proposal 'frontage." It comprises a portion of the "front part" of the property — it is in fact the property's driveway, and the property enjoys an access easement ownership interest in the driveway. And it is land "between the building and the street." Accordingly, the 17401 property has 330.48 ft. of street frontage. Under the Tukwila Municipal Code, it is entitled to a 75 sq. ft. freestanding sign. We have enclosed copies of the documents describing the "no- build" zone and the access easement. Please call me or Brad Decker after your review. Thank you. Sincerely, G. Richard Hill GRH:ldc Enclosures cc: Brad Decker G: \Decker Development \926.001 \Corr \bradshaw0l.doc Meeting Date Prepared Mayor's review Cpi, ci review 03/07/05 SL E UVWvv k V CAS NUMBER: O 35 AGENDA ITEM TITLE Appeal of the Board of Architectural Review decision approving the SC -3 Retail Project CATEGORY ❑ Discussion Mtg Date SPONSOR ❑ Council ❑ Mayor ❑ Adm Svcs ❑ DCD SPONSOR'S SUMMARY REVIEWED BY 1 / 4 4wr' • A property owner and a tenant adjacent to 17401 Southcenter Parkway have filed quasijudicial appeals of the BAR decision in case 104 -036. The Board approved the design of a strip retail development that would replace the existing Winners Restaurant. The City Council must hold a closed record appeal hearing and either affirm the BAR decision or send the project back to the BAR for modifications. RECOMMENDATIONS: SPONSOR /ADMIN. Affirm the decision of the BAR COMMITTEE NA EXPENDITURE REQUIRED Fund Source: NA Comments: 3/7/05 3/7/05 COUNCIL AGENDA SYNOPSIS iuf ❑ Motion Mtg Date a : .. :'i� : '. ❑ Resolution Mtg Date Staff Memo dated 3/2/05 I nitials ORIGINAL AGENDA DATE: 3/7/05 ❑ Ordinance Mrs Date ❑ COW Mtg. ❑ CA&P Crate ❑ F&S Cmte ❑ Transportation Cmte ❑ Utilities Cmte ❑ Arts Comm. ❑ Parks Comm. ❑ Planning Comm. DATE: Brief from Tukwila City Attorney Shelley Kerslake ❑ Bid Award Mtg Dare Finance ❑ Fire ❑ Legal ❑ Poll. ❑ Police ❑ PW Exhibits to the Memo are contained in the Binder distributed 1/28/05 Memorandum from Applicant's Attorney Henry 3ameson * Brief from Appellant CPLF's Attorney Melody McCutcheon * Brief from Appellant 3oAnn's Attorney Joshua Brower * I7EMNo. ® Public Hearing Mtg Date 3/7/05 ❑ Other Mtg Date "A_C / FUND :.SOURC a AMOUNT BUDGETED APPROPRIATION REQUIRED * These were distributed directly to Council on 3/4/05, please bring to hearing t • Staff: Nora Gierloff, Planning Supervisor MEMORANDUM To: Mayor Mullet and Members of the City Council From: Steve Lancaster, Director of Community Development Subject: Staff Response to Appeals of Board of Architectural Review Decision on L04 -036 the SC -3 Retail Building Date: March 2, 2005 FINDINGS Hearing Date: March 7, 2005 File Numbers: L04 -082 Jo -Ann Stores Appeal L04 -083 ING Appeal Applicant: Brad Decker, DDCI Appellants' Request: Remand the project back to the BAR for further consideration of alternative layouts. Location: 17401 Southcenter Parkway Background On November 18,2004 the Board of Architectural Review (BAR) granted design approval for a strip retail building on the site of the existing Winners Restaurant at 17401 Southcenter Parkway. The original proposal for a single story retail building with accessory parking, landscaping, loading, and trash/recycling was revised at the 9/16/04 hearing and again at the continued 10/14/04 hearing before being approved. The approved design is shown at Attachment B to the second supplemental staff report at Exhibit 3. The BAR based its decision on the criteria given at TMC 18.60 and on the findings and conclusions contained in the staff reports, see Exhibits 3, 7 and 13. Two notices of appeal of the BAR's decision were filed within the 21 day appeal period by attorneys representing JoAnn Stores and ING Real Estate. These are attached as Exhibits 1 and 2. These notices were mailed to parties of record, the BAR and the City Council on December 15, 2004. Notice of the appeal hearing was mailed on January 19 and published and posted on January 21 Note: Exhibits referenced in this memo are in the binders distributed to Council on 1/28/05. Staff Memo: Appeal of L04 -036 SC -3 Design Review Page 2 Because one of the appellants was inadvertently missed on the mailed hearing notice the hearing was postponed until March 7 to allow for renoticing. Notice of the rescheduled hearing was mailed on February 1 and mailed and posted on February 18 Under the Zoning Code only one open record public hearing on a permit is allowed. This was the BAR hearing (which was kept open and continued twice) so the appeal hearing to the City Council is required to be closed record. This means that no new evidence or testimony may be presented, all arguments must be based on the hearing record, and only parties to the appeal may address the Council (appellants, the applicant, and staff). The scope of the appeal is limited to issues raised in the notices of appeal. The City Council's role is to decide if the BAR made a proper decision to approve the design based on the information in the hearing record including the staff report and attachments, items presented at the meeting and testimony by staff, the applicant and the public. The City Council may adopt as its own, all or portions of the BAR findings and conclusions. In the event the City Council determines that it lacks adequate information on which to make findings of fact necessary to its decision, the City Council may remand the project back to the BAR with instructions to reopen the public hearing to take additional testimony and provide the BAR findings on the factual issues identified by the City Council as requiring such additional information (TMC 18.112.050). Following are condensed restatements of the issues raised by the appellants, followed by Staffs response. Since the issues raised in the Jo -Ann and ING appeals are so similar the issues and responses have been combined. For the full text of the appeals see Exhibits 1 and 2. Analysis Appeal Issue #1: The BAR applied the wrong standard to the proposal They should have required a clear demonstration of compliance with the guidelines rather than the lower standard of meeting the minimum criteria. Members Of the BAR stated that they thought that the proposal met the minimum standards in the design review criteria. Whether the applicant clearly demonstrated compliance (TMC 18.60.030 B) has to do with the completeness and consistency of the drawings that formed the basis of the application. The drawing set attached to the final staff report (Exhibit 3 B) clearly describes the proposed building and site improvements. Appeal Issue #2: The BAR improperly shifted the burden of proof. The appellants contend that the BAR approved the project because they were "worn down by the Applicant's refusal to redesign the Proposal e 4 of Exhibit 1 In fact, the BAR did not design the consultant's recommendations." See page to redesign the site in the way recommended by Staff and suggested by the City's design review consultant because that layout required an additional access point outside of the common access drive easement, see Exhibit 13 E for the extent of the common easement. See the Note: Exhibits referenced in this memo are in the binders distributed to Council on 1/28/05. FTB diagram at Exhibit 13 F (reproduced below with emphasis added) showing the cut through the landscape island necessary to access the aisle of parking adjacent to Southcenter Parkway from the south. Staff Memo: Appeal of L04 -036 SC -3 Design Review Page 3 At the 9/16/04 hearing Chuck Wigman speaking on behalf of the surrounding property owners stated that "frankly we can't really ... work in conjunction with something that's going to put a building in an area on the leases that would have shown as a `no- build' clause." See page 17 of Exhibit 14. The BAR decided not to pursue a change in the site plan shifting the building toward the street because the redesign was based on an action from ING that was beyond the Board's ability to require. At the 10/14/04 hearing Boardmember Mayhew stated "I'm not sure that you can get the applicant and the other owners to agree. I think that's a major problem and therefore I think we ought to proceed without that agreement, but make sure that the safety issues are covered, without necessarily getting an agreement between any of the parties. Because it looks to me like that, ING and Borders and Jo -Ann's can effectively stop this thing by just, by just not agreeing..." See page 39 of Exhibit 8. Given the site layout, the BAR approved the project once they determined that the building design, landscaping and safety issues had been resolved. Appeal Issue #3: The BAR erred by failing to issue written Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law separate from the Notice of Decision. The BAR adopted the findings and conclusions contained in the staff report and this is noted in the Notice of Decision. They are not required to issue a separate document by the Tukwila Zoning Code. The City Attorney has reviewed this issue and finds that the BAR's action complied with the TMC requirements. Appeal Issue #4: The Applicant did not meet the City's design review criteria because the proposal does not: Note: Exhibits referenced in this memo are in the binders distributed to Council on 1/28/05. Staff Memo: Appeal of L04 -036 SC -3 Design Review Page 4 1) moderate the visual impact of the parking, loading and service areas due to placement of the service area directly in front of Jo-Ann Stores without any screening The garbage and recycling collection area for the SC -3 building is proposed at the rear of the building, approximately 180 feet north of the entrance to the Jo -Ann Store and across from a parking area. It will be screened by a concrete wall and metal gate painted to match the building color. The loading spaces are at the northwest corner of the building, past the dumpster enclosure, see Sheet A1.0 of Exhibit 3 B. 2) provide adequate landscape transition to existing businesses including Jo-Ann Stores Below is a picture of the common access drive between the Winners Restaurant and the Park Place building, the picture is from staff's powerpoint presentation at 9/16/04 hearing. The width of the driveway will be maintained, however there will be a row of parking on the left starting at approximately the curb line and then 20 feet back will be the SC -3 building wall. The applicant has proposed to provide 614 square feet of landscaping in six landscape islands of various sizes along the rear of the building. The landscape architect has specified some plants such as heavenly bamboo, katsura trees and vibernum that are also used in the landscape areas around the Park Place Shopping Center, see the landscape plan in Exhibit 3 B and narrative at Exhibit 3 p. 5. 3) ensure consistency with neighborhood character by being too close to existing structures and blocking views of the Jo-Ann store from Southcenter Parkway No point of the SC -3 building will be within 60 feet of any structure, including the Jo -Ann Store due to a no -build easement, see dashed line on grading plan set in Exhibit 3 B. The existing Winners Restaurant is between the Jo -Ann Store and Southcenter Parkway, with the southern edge of the restaurant approximately even with the northern edge of the Jo -Ann Store, see aerial photo at Exhibit 16. The SC -3 building would extend about 90 feet further south than Winners while the conceptual site plan suggested by FTB, the City's design consultant would have the building extend about 30 feet further than Winners, see Exhibit 13 F. However, the site concept suggested by FTB is just at the sketch stage and it does not give building square footage or parking calculations. Design development of this concept might well result in building dimensions different than those suggested. Under either of the site designs visibility of the Jo -Ann store by southbound drivers on Southcenter Parkway would be less than what currently exists with the Winners building. Below is a picture of the view of the site by southbound traffic on Southcenter Parkway, the picture is from staffs powerpoint presentation at 9/16/04 hearing. The SC -3 proposal would Note: Exhibits referenced in this memo are in the binders distributed to Council on 1/28/05. Staff Memo: Appeal of L04 -036 SC -3 Design Review Page 5 lower the site to be closer to the road elevation by removing approximately 3,000 cubic yards of fill, see Exhibit 3 B Grading Plan. 4) ensure compatibility of vehicular and pedestrian circulation patterns by eliminating existing parking used by adjacent businesses and forcing pedestrians to cross a common access drive to reach the Jo-Ann Stores A parking area consisting of one double loaded and one single loaded aisle directly in front of the Jo -Ann Store and adjacent to the main Winners entrance would be displaced by the SC -3 building, see Exhibit 10. Jo -Ann customers who currently use this parking must cross the common access drive to reach the store entrance. Another, larger parking area north of the Jo -Ann store provides access to the store entrance without requiring pedestrians to cross the driveway and will not be affected by the SC -3 proposal, see approved site plan in Exhibit 3 B. 5) provide adequate screening of lighting by placing the back of the structure too close to Jo-Ann Stores It is unclear what lighting the appellant is asking to be screened. The applicant provided a lighting diagram in Exhibit 13 I and fixture cut sheets as Exhibit 7 C and D. 6) ensure appropriate scale and harmony by being too close to Jo Stores As noted above, the SC -3 building will be between 60 and 75 feet east of the Jo -Ann building for approximately 90 feet, Exhibit 3 B. The conceptual site plan that the appellants have requested that the BAR reconsider would not move the SC -3 building further away from Jo- Ann, but would reduce the length by approximately 60 feet, Exhibit 13 F. At approximately 18,700 square feet the SC -3 building would be larger than the Winners Restaurant, but significantly smaller than the main portion of the Park Place Shopping Center. It will be one story and the tops of the parapets will vary between 33 and 43 feet above the adjusted grade, Exhibit 3 B. Note: Exhibits referenced in this memo are in the binders distributed to Council on 1/28/05. Staff Memo: Appeal of L04 -036 SC -3 Design Review Page 6 Conclusions Appeal Issue #1: The BAR concluded that the SC -3 proposal met the design review criteria. The final drawing set clearly describes the proposed building and site improvements. Appeal Issue #2: The BAR required that the project be redesigned to meet the design review criteria to the extent of its authority. The Board concluded that reconfiguring the building as recommended by staff required the cooperation of the surrounding property owner and tenants which was beyond their ability to compel. Appeal Issue #3: The BAR properly made a motion to adopt the findings and conclusions in the final staff report, which references the earlier analysis. See Exhibit 3 p. 9. Appeal Issue #4: 1) The SC -3 dumpster area will be screened and located away from the Jo -Ann Store entrance. 2) The proposed site plan exceeds landscape code requirements. The proposed plant palatte includes plants used on the Park Place property. 3) The alternate site plan suggested by FTB would not move the building further away from the Jo-Ann Store and would still block views by southbound traffic on Southcenter Parkway. 4) While the SC -3 project will displace parking that is convenient to the Jo -Ann Store, 'competition for that parking by Winners customers is high. Patrons will still have the option of using the northern parking area that does not require crossing the common driveway. 5) It is unclear what aspect of the lighting the appellant is objecting to and how the alternate site plan would remedy the issue. 6) While the SC -3 building is larger than the Winners Restaurant it replaces it is smaller than many nearby buildings. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council uphold the decision of the Tukwila BAR in case L04- 036 to approve the design of the SC -3 Retail Building and site. The redesign of the site plan that the appellants are requesting is only feasible if ING grants an additional access point to the lot, something that the BAR cannot require. There is no point to sending the project back to the BAR to modify the site plan if the applicant does not have the authority to implement the revision. Staff suggests that the Council direct staff to prepare a new consolidated Notice of Decision due to possible confusion about the BAR's findings and conclusions being contained in three staff reports. k 0 Note: Exhibits referenced in this memo are in the binders distributed to Council on 1/28/05. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON In Re: Appeal of Design Review Approval for a Project Located at 17401 Southcenter Parkway CITY OF TUKWILA'S BRIEF TO THE CITY COUNCIL - 1 ,...........e.....wrn TAMS 1 o.:.P_ n.wt..AAO A-- .ef .t....irMhIfl9MC NO. L04 -036 CITY OF TUKWILA'S BRIEF TO THE CITY COUNCIL L PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND This action is on appeal to the City Council from the Board of Architectural Review (`BAR ") pursuant to Tukwila Municipal Code ( "TMC ") 18.104.010(E) for Type 4 decisions. On November 18, 2004, the BAR, by way of an oral vote, accepted the findings and conclusions contained in the staff report and granted design approval to applicant Brad Decker for a strip retail building on the site of the existing Winners Restaurant. A public hearing before the BAR was first held on September 16, 2004. At that time, the BAR concluded that the proposal lacked sufficient information and continued the hearing to October 14, 2004. On October 14, the BAR again concluded that it had insufficient information to take a vote and continued the hearing until November 18, 2004. On November 18, the BAR concluded that it had sufficient information to take a vote and the proposal was approved. Staff then issued a Notice of IKENYON DISEND, PLLC - - T E MUNICIPAL LAW FIRM 11 FRONT STREET SOUTH ISSAQUAH, WASHINGTON 98027 - 3820 /Ala i01_1A0f1 FAY Id7S\ 10-7A71 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Decision on November 19, 2004, stating the BAR's findings and conclusions along with information pertaining to how the BAR's decision could be appealed. In accordance with the appeals procedure, two Notices of Appeal were filed within the appeal period, one by Jo -Ann Stores, Inc. and the other by CLPF - Tukwila, L.P. (owner of Park Place Shopping Center). The City then mailed a Notice of Appeal Hearing on January 19, 2005,, and published and posted the Notice of Appeal Hearing on January 21, 2005. The attorney for Jo -Ann Stores then notified the City that although he was a party of record he had not received notice of the February 7, 2005, appeals hearing. In order to notify properly all parties of record, the City then postponed the appeal hearing until March 7, 2005. IL STANDARD OF REVIEW An appeal to the Council from a BAR decision is limited to those issues raised by the appellant in its Notice of Appeal. TMC 18.116.030(A)(3). The appellants carry the burden of proof on appeal. Id. Type 4 decisions are quasi-judicial decisions made by the BAR or the Planning Commission, following an open record hearing. TMC 18.104.010(E). Type 4 decisions may be appealed to the City Council which will hold a closed record appeal hearing based on the record established by the BAR or Planning Commission. A. Closed Record Appeal. TMC 18.06.152 defines closed record appeal as: a quasi-judicial appeal to a hearing body designated by this chapter from a decision regarding a project permit application that was made after an open record hearing. Testimony and submission of relevant evidence and information shall not be permitted at a hearing on such an appeal. The KENYON DISEND, PLLC CITY OF TUKWILA'S BRIEF TO THE CITY COUNCIL - 2 C:\W INDOWS\TEMP\PLD - Brief - Decker BAR Appeal.dac/T/03/02/0S THE MUNICIPAL LAW FIRM 1 1 FRONT STREET SouTH ISSAQUAH, WASHINGTON 98027 - 3820 (425) 392 -7090 FAX (425) 392 -7071 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 hearing on such an appeal shall be limited to argument based on testimony, evidence and documents submitted at the open record hearing conducted on the project permit application. Thus, this appeal proceeding is not a new hearing, to take additional evidence, it is simply a review of a previous administrative action. See Berger Engineering Co. v. Hopkins, 54 Wn.2d 300, 308, 340 P.2d 777 (1959) (an appellate court "is not a fact - finding branch of the judicial system of this state." A tribunal with only appellate jurisdiction is not permitted to make its own findings). Unlike an "open record hearing" where oral testimony and submission of relevant evidence and documents is permissible to create an official record, TMC 18.06.594, on a "closed record appeal," testimony and submission of relevant evidence and information is not permitted, TMC 18.06.152. Instead, the review is limited to argument based on the testimony, evidence and documents submitted at the "open record hearing" conducted by the BAR. TMC 18.06.152. Additional testimony not part of the BAR's official record, is impermissible and a direct violation of the procedural requirements of the TMC. Failure to abide by the restraints of a closed record appeal may result in a review by the Superior Court of the Council's decision. If the Council determines, during its review, that it lacks adequate. information on which to make findings of fact necessary to its decision, the Council must remand the action back to the BAR with instructions to re -open the public hearing to take additional testimony. TMC 18.112.050(C). B. Review on Appeal. The Council must review the challenged factual findings of the BAR to determine if the Bar's factual findings were supported by substantial evidence. North/South CITY OF TUKWILA'S BRIEF TO THE CITY COUNCIL - ......w.+.+.n rn+ ..wn..,nn99 ' 1 - Rri.f_ ►1...L.. RAP A. owl ,I....fr RYA anane KENYON DISEND, PLLC - THE MUNICIPAL LAW FIRM 1 1 FROM STREET SOUTH ISSAQUAH, WASHINGTON 98027 -3820 1411c% 909_7AOfl F AY 1d9 Cl 901 -7fl71 1 L\ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Airpark Association v. Hagen, 87 Wn. App. 765, 942 P.2d 1068 (1997); State v. Pierce County, 65 Wn. App. 614, 829 P.2d 217 (1992). Substantial evidence exists when there is a sufficient quantity of evidence in the record to persuade a fair minded, rational person of the truth of the finding. Hilltop Terrace Homeowners Association v. Island Co., 126 Wn.2d 22, 891 P.2d 29 (1997); Freeburg v. City of Seattle, 71 Wn. App. 367, 859 P.2d 610 (1993) (substantial evidence for variance approval found when, after testimony heard, the hearing examiner found all the conditions required to grant a variance were present). Thus, as long as there is a sufficient quantity of evidence for a fair - minded person to conclude that BAR's factual findings were reasonable, the findings should be affirmed. The remaining procedural issue is what legal standard should be applied to the BAR's conclusion? The TMC states that the applicant must demonstrate "clear demonstration of compliance with all of the guidelines of this chapter." TMC 18.60.030(B). Unfortunately, there is no definition in the TMC as to what satisfies a "clear demonstration of compliance." However, the TMC does provide that, `Except where specifically defined in this chapter, all words used in this title shall carry their customary meaning." TMC 18.06.005. Thus, the Council is left with using the customary meaning of the words. TMC 18.06.005. Cambridge Dictionary defines "clear" as "easy to understand, hear, read or see "; in other words, it is plain or evident to the reviewer. Washington law sets forth several standards of review that may shed some light on what is meant by "clear demonstration of compliance." The minimum standard routinely applied to such administrative inquiries is a preponderance of the evidence standard. A preponderance means that the evidence KENYON DISEND, PLLC CITY OF TUKWILA'S BRIEF TO THE CITY COUNCIL - THE MUNICIPAL LAW FIRM 11 FRONT STREET SOUTH 4 ISSAQUAH, WASHINGTON 98027 -3820 wrNDOWSITEMP\PLD00333 - Brief - Decker BARAppeal.dorl/03 /02/05 (425) 392-7090 FAX (425) 392 -7071 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ' 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 establishes that the proposition at issue is more probably true than not true. In re Welfare of Sego, 82 Wn.2d 736, 739 n.2, 513 P.2d 831 (1973). The TMC certainly requires more than that minimum quantum of proof. One of the more stringent burdens of proof is the clear, cogent and convincing standard. To sustain an order premised upon clear, cogent and convincing evidence, the ultimate fact in issue must be shown by evidence to be "highly probable." In re Estate of Pflegher, 35 Wn. App. 844, 847, 670 P.2d 677 (1983). Given this range of legal standards of review, it appears that the TMC contemplates something less than "clear, cogent and convincing," yet something more than a preponderance. Thus, the City contends that the standard of review for the BAR's legal conclusion is more than "more probable than not" and less than "highly probable" and requires that the Council apply a standard which requires compliance to be evident or easily understood from the evidence. Thus, the ultimate question for the Council to consider in this appeal is whether the appellants have met their burden to demonstrate that there is not substantial evidence in the record to support the conclusion that the applicant met the clear demonstration of compliance standard III. ISSUES ON APPEAL On appeal, the appellants contend that the BAR: 1) applied the wrong standard of review to the proposal; 2) improperly shifted the burden of proof; 3) failed to issue written findings of fact and conclusions of law separate from the Notice of Decision; and 4) improperly found that the applicant met the City's design criteria. As the appealing party, the burden of proof is on the appellants to show that the BAR's ruling is in error. KENYON DISEND, PLLC CITY OF TUKWILA'S BRIEF TO THE CITY COUNCIL - THE MUNICIPAL LAW FIRM' 1 I FRONT STREET SOUTH 5 ISSAQUAH, WASHINGTON 98027 -3820 e.WITN WS\TEMF PLD00333 - Brief - Decker BAR AppeaLdoc/T /03/02/05 (425) 392-7090 FAX (425) 392 -7071 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. Standard of Review. The appellants challenge the standard of review used by the BAR in making its decision. The standard of review that applies to the BAR's decision is that the applicant must show a "clear demonstration of compliance" with the guidelines of TMC 18.60. TMC 18.60.030(B). The appellants contend that the BAR lowered its standard by allowing the applicant to barely "eek" past the City's approval criteria. Exhibit 1, pg. 3 and Exhibit 2, pg 4. On appeal, the appellants must demonstrate that there is not substantial evidence in the record to conclude that the applicant showed a "clear demonstration of compliance." B. Burden of Proof. Before the BAR, the burden of proof is born by the applicant to show that the Proposed development plans satisfy all of the criteria of TMC 18.60. TMC 18.60.050(A). However, the BAR may modify a literal interpretation of the criteria if, in their judgment, such modifications better implement the Comprehensive Plan's goals and policies. Id. Both appellants contend that this burden of proof was not met. Exhibit 1, pg. 3 -4 and Exhibit 2, pg. 4. Appellant Jo -Ann Stores asserts that this burden was not met by the applicant refusing to incorporate suggested changes, and refusing to redesign the proposal consistent with the City's independent design consultant's recommendations. Exhibit 1, pg. 3-4. Appellant CLPF - Tukwila, L.P. gives no reason why the burden of proof was not met other than stating so. Exhibit 2, pg. 4. In the staff report, staff found that the applicant had modified his proposal and; therefore, recommended approval of the proposal. Exhibit 3, pg. 10. By adopting the staff report, the BAR asserted that the KENYON DISEND, PLLC CITY OF TUKWILA'S BRIEF TO THE CITY COUNCIL - ME MUNICIPAL LAW FIRM 11 FRowr STREET SOUTH 6 ISSAQUAH, WASRm oToN 98027 -3820 CAWINDOWS\TEMP\PLD - Brief- Decker BAR Appeal.doc/T703 /02/05 (425) 392 -7090 FAX (425) 392 -7071 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 k 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 applicant had met his burden of proof. On appeal, the appellants must show that the applicant failed to meet his initial burden of proof. C. Failure to Issue a Written Decision. Following a hearing, the BAR must render a written decision including its finding of facts and conclusions. TMC 18.108.040(C). Pursuant to TMC 18.112.050(B), "Any hearing body may adopt as its own, findings and conclusions recommended by the Department." The Department must then promptly issue a Notice of Decision. Id. In this case, the BAR issued an oral ruling at the hearing on November 18, 2004. Exhibit 4, pg. 9. Staff then issued a written Notice of Decision that contained the BAR's ruling Exhibit 1, attachment. Appellants contend that the BAR failed to render a written decision containing the BAR's findings of fact and conclusions. At the November 18, 2004 hearing, the BAR orally adopted staff s findings of fact and conclusions. BAR Commissioner Malina entertained a motion on the application. Exhibit 4, pg. 9. Commissioner Meryhew made the motion stating: I'll make a motion that item L04 -036, the um, retail building, demolition of the Winners Restaurant and development of the new building there at 17401 Park, Southcenter Parkway, be uh be approved with staffs findings and conclusions and uh, the recommendation caught [sic] out in the staff report. Id. Commissioner Ekberg seconded this motion. Id. A vote was taken and only Commissioner Marvin opposed the approval of the application. Id. By approving staff s findings and conclusions the BAR utilized TMC 18.112.050(B), which allows any hearing body to adopt staffs recommendations. Therefore, the appellants must demonstrate that the BAR's actions failed to comply with TMC 18.108.040(C) for rendering a written decision. KENYON DISEND, PLLC CITY OF TUKWILA'S BRIEF TO THE CITY COUNCIL - THE MUNICIPAL LAW FIRM 1 1 FRONT STREET SOUTH 7 ISSAQUAH, WASHINGTON 98027 -3820 r.tt,ntnntt,cvru AD\DI I141A111 _ n.,.f. mew.. R AD Anw..I A.... rmi Inllne /A1[\ 107_711011 CAV /A1[ \ 107_11171 D. Design Review Criteria. 1 Whether or not an applicant meets the design review criteria of TMC 18.60 is left 2 3 to the discretion of the BAR. TMC 18.60.030(B). However, the BAR may modify a 4 literal interpretation of the criteria if, in their judgment, such modifications better 5 implement the Comprehensive Plan's goals and policies. TMC 18.60.050(A). Appellant 6 Jo -Ann Stores contends that the proposal: 1) does not provide adequate pedestrian movement; 2) fails to moderate the visual impact of the parking and service areas; 8 3) fails to provide adequate landscaping transitions; 4) fails to ensure the proposal is consistent with established neighborhood 9 character; 10 5) fails to ensure compatibility of vehicular and pedestrian circulation patterns; 6) fails to provide adequate screening of service yards and loading facilities; 11 7) fails to provide adequate screening of lighting; 8) fails to ensure appropriate scale and harmony with existing neighboring 12 development; and • 9) fails to ensure an appropriate relationship to adjacent site by blocking views. 13 Appellant CLPF - Tukwila, L.P. contends that the proposal: 14 15 1) fails to consider alternative site layouts; 2) fails to require a harmonious relationship with adjacent businesses; and 16 3) blocks the visibility of Jo -Ann's from the Southcenter Parkway. 17 The appellants must demonstrate that there was not substantial evidence for the BAR to 18 conclude that the applicant had met the design review criteria of TMC 18.60 pertaining to 19 these issues. 20 IV. COUNCIL ACTION 21 Following the appeal hearing, the Council must render a written decision, 22 including findings of fact and conclusions, and staff must promptly issue a Revised 23 Notice of Decision pursuant to TMC 18.108.040(F). The Council's decision is final but 24 may be appealed to the Superior Court pursuant to RCW 36.70C. TMC 18.108.040(G). 25 CITY OF TUKWILA'S BRIEF TO THE CITY COUNCIL - 8 rxwrNnnwnTF.MAPLD0033 - Brief - Decker BAR Appeal.doc/T/03 /02/05 KENYON DISEND, PLLC THE MUNICIPAL Law FIRM 11 FRONT STREET SOUTH 1 (425) 392 90 FAX (425) 392 707 There are several courses of action Council may take in this appeal. After reviewing the record and considering the argument of Counsel, the Council may accept, modify or reject the Board's decision or any finding or conclusion therein, or may remand to the BAR for further hearing on any issue raised in the appeal. DATED this .2 day of March, 2005. MY OF TUKWILA'S BRIEF TO THE CITY COUNCIL - 9 nArrmrMUrevre % /W M rAA111 . Rrinf. flrr4.r PAR Annwsl rinrTIMMIInc KENYON DISEND, PL B Shelley �' ers WSBA o.21820 Attorneys for City of Tukwila KENYON DISEND, PLLC THE MUNICIPAL LAW FIRM 11 FRONT STREET SOUTH ISSAQUAH, WASHINGTON 98027 -3820 (45 c% aO9_7nOn PAY /ANSI 109.71171 In re: Honorable Members Tukwila City Council 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 Via Legal Messenger Ms. Shelley Kerslake Kenyon Disend, PLLC 11 Front Street South Issaquah, WA 98027 -3820 Via Facsimile and U.S. Mail Certificate of Service - Page 1 of 2 BEFORE THE TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL Appeal of Design Review Approval for a Project at 17401 Southcenter Parkway I, Karen A. Therese, am a legal secretary for the law firm of Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson, P.S., 500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98101. I hereby certify that on March 2, 2005, I caused true and correct copies of Pre - Hearing Brief of Appellant CLPF - Tukwila, L.P. and this Certificate of Service to be served upon the following at the address and in the manner listed below. ORIGINAL Project File No.: L04 -036 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Ms. Nora Gierloff Planning Supervisor Department of Community Development City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 Via Legal Messenger Sarah Mack Joshua Brower Mentor Law Group PLLC 2025 1 Avenue, Suite 1100 Seattle, WA 98121 Via Facsimile and U.S. Mail HILLIS CLARK MARTIN & PETERSON, P.S. 500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Ave Seattle WA 98101 -2925 206.623.1745; fax 206.623.7789 4 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 3 4 - 5 6 7 8 9 10 Henry C. Jameson Jameson Babbitt Stites Lombard PLLC 999 Third Avenue, Suite 1900 Seattle, WA 98104 Via Facsimile and U.S. Mail I certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington and the United States and that the foregoing is true and correct. DATED this 2nd day of March 2005. #297048 18438 -002 6d7c01!.doc 3/2/2005 Certificate of Service - Page 2 of 2 Karen A. Therese HILLIS CLARK MARTIN & PETERSON, P.S. 500 Galland Building, 1221 Second Ave Seattle WA 98101 -2925 206.623.1745; fax 206.623.7789 PAR -02 -2005 11:04 HCMP HILLIS CLARK MARTI & PETERSON la IP offices To: Company: Fax: Phone: To: Company: Fax: Phone: To: Company: Far: Phone: To: Company: Fax: Phone: From: Re: Shelley M. Kerslake Kenyon Disend, PLLC 425 -392 -7071 425- 392 -7090 Nora Gierloff City of Tukwila (206) 431 -3665 (206) 433 -7141 Sarah Mack and Josh Brower Mentor Law Group (206) 493 -2310 (206) 493 -2300 Henry C. Jameson Jameson Babbitt Stites Lombard PLLC 206- 292 -1995 206 -292 -1994 Melody B. McCutcheon March 7, 2005 Appeal of the Design Review Approval for the Project at 17401 Southcenter Boulevard Message: Please see attached. The information contained In and with this fax transmission is confidential and may be attorney - client privileged, It is intended only for the use of the individuals or entities named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by telephone and return the original message to us at the address below. Thank you. GM No: Return to: KAT #297015 16436-002 6461011.doc 3/02/05 HillisClarkMartinPeterson 206 623 7789 P.01'03 FAX TRANSMITTAL Date: 3/2/05 Time: Pages: 3 Original Will Not Follow 500 Gailand Building 1221 Second Avenue Seattle, Washington 98101-2925 phone 206.623.1745 fax 206.623.7789 WWW.hcmp.com A PROFESSIONAL SERVICE CORPORATION ,MAR -02 -2005 1104 HCMP t CLARK MARTIN & PETERSON law office,' Ms. Shelley Kerslake Kenyon Disend, PLLC 11 Front Street South Issaquah, WA 98027 -3820 TT liff MER1TAS HillisClarkMartinPeterson 206 623 7789 P.02/03 March 2, 2005 Re: City of Tukwila - BAR Appeals Dear Ms. Kerslake: Thank you for your letter of March 1 enclosing Resolution 1335 as the procedure for quasi-judicial proceedings before the Tukwila City Council. Actually, a copy of this same Resolution was provided to me in January 2005 by Michael Kenyon. However, we noted then and continue to observe that this Resolution pertains to open record proceedings before the City Council where anyone wishing to comment may do so. The BAR appeals are specifically closed record appeal proceedings which, as you know, are different from the open record situation. Thus, it remains unclear what format the City will use for the appeal hearing scheduled for March 7. As a closed record appeal hearing, we would suggest the following format for consideration by the parties. First, any legal issues or decision criteria would be explained by the City Attorney and the staff, and staff would also briefly introduce the project. Each appellant would then make an opening presentation, followed by the City and applicant's presentation, with rebuttal then allocated to the appellants. An equal amount of time would be allocated to the City and applicant on one side, and both appellants on the other side. For example, the appellants' opening presentations could be 20 minutes in length, followed by 30 minutes for the City and applicant, and 10 minutes for rebuttal by both appellants. We are copying the other parties to this appeal, in the hopes that we can work out a joint understanding of the format. Of course, the particular allocations of time would depend on the City Council and other business on the agenda, but the basic format could remain as we agreed. LAW FIRMS WORLDWIDE Via Facsimile 500 Galland Building 1221 Second Avenue Seattle, Washington 98101 - 2925 phone 206.623.1745 fax 206.623.7789 www. hcmp.com A PROFESSIONAL SERVICE CORPORATION MAR -02 -2005 11:04 Ms. Shelley Kerslake March 2, 2005 Page 2 of 2 I welcome your thoughts on this matter and comments from the other parties. Very truly yours, MBM:kat E - Mail: MBM@hcmp.com HillisClarkMartinPeterson 206 623 7789 P.03/03 ta Melody B. McCutcheon cc via facsimile: Nora Gierloff Henry C. Jameson Sarah Mack/ Josh Brower, Mentor Law Group #297225 18438002 6dc901!.doc HCMP TOTAL P.03 Henry C. Jameson Member (206) 516-3202 hjameson@jbsl.com Via Messenger JAMESON BABBITT S 1TIES & LOMBARD, P.L.L.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW Ms. Nora Gierloff Planning Supervisor City of Tukwila Dept. of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Blvd., Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 February 28, 2005 Re: In re: Appeal of Design Review Approval for a Project at 17401 Southcenter Parkway Hearing Date: March 7, 2005, 7:00 p.m. Dear Ms. Gierloff: Delivered herewith are an original and seven binders of Applicant Brad Decker's Memorandum of Authorities with attached exhibits. The original is for you, and the binders are for each City Council member. Copies have been served today upon Sarah E. Mack, counsel for Jo - Ann Stores, and Melody B. McCutcheon, counsel for appellant CLPF - Tukwila, L.P. Attachments cc: Mr. Brad Decker 52144 \01000\266683.V01 HCJ Very truly yours, JAMESON BABBITT STITES & LOMBARD, P.L.L.C. ,// v By: Henry C. Jameson 999 THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 1900 TEL 206 292 1994 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104-4001 FAX 206 292 1995 RFCSI FEB 28 2005' D VEOPMENT city of Tukwila Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director February 18, 2005 RE: Rescheduled Appeal of the design review approval for the SC -3 Retail Building at 17401 Southcenter Boulevard On November 18, 2004 the Tukwila Board of Architectural Review (BAR) granted design approval for an 18,677 sf strip retail building on the site of the existing Winners Restaurant on Southcenter Parkway. The applicant was Brad Decker representing the owner, SC3 LLC. See the reverse of this page for the approved site plan for the project. Two notices of appeal of the BAR's decision were filed within the 21 day appeal period by attorneys representing JoAnn Stores and ING Real Estate. This appeal will be heard by the Tukwila City Council on March 7 at 7:00 PM in the Tukwila City Council Chambers, not February 7 as originally scheduled. While all interested parties may attend the hearing, it is a closed record hearing so only the parties to the appeal will be permitted to testify. The project files, L04 -036, L04 -082, L04 -083 and E04 -012, and are available for review at the City of Tukwila. To view the files, you may request them at the permit counter of the Tukwila Department of Community Development (DCD), located at 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite 100. If you have any additional questions or comments please call me at the City of Tukwila Planning Division, (206) 431 -3670. Sincerel Nora Gierloff Planning Supervisor Steven M Mullet, Mayor 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 City of Tukwila January 31, 2005 Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director RE: Rescheduled Appeal of the design review approval for the SC -3 Retail Building at 17401 Southcenter Boulevard On November 18, 2004 the Tukwila Board of Architectural Review (BAR) granted design approval for a strip retail building on the site of the existing Winners Restaurant on Southcenter Parkway. See the reverse of this page for the approved site plan for the project. Two notices of appeal of the BAR's decision were filed within the 21 day appeal period by attorneys representing JoAnn Stores and 1NG Real Estate. This appeal will be heard by the Tukwila City Council on March 7 at 7:00 PM in the Tukwila City Council Chambers, not February 7 as originally scheduled. While all interested parties may attend the hearing, it is a closed record hearing so only the parties to the appeal will be permitted to testify. The project files are available for review at the City of Tukwila. To view the files, you may request them at the permit counter of the Tukwila Department of Community Development (DCD), located at 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite 100. If you have any additional questions or comments please call me at the City of Tukwila Planning Division, (206) 431 -3670. Sincerel ra Gierloff Planning Supervisor Steven M Mullet, Mayor 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 ( ) U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS () FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION () DEPT OF FISH & WILDLIFE () OFFICE OF ARCHAEOLOGY ( ) TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT () DEPT NATURAL RESOURCES ( ) OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR () DEPT OF COMM. TRADE & ECONOMIC DEV. () DEPT OF FISHERIES & WULDUFE () BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD () FIRE DISTRICT 111 () FIRE DISTRICT #2 ( ) K.C. WASTEWATER TREATMENT DIVISION () KC. DEPT OF PARKS & REC j K.C. ASSESSORS OFFICE ( ) TUKWILA SCHOOL DISTRICT ( ) TUKWILA LIBRARY () RENTON UBRARY () KENT UBRARY () CITY OF SEATTLE UBRARY ( ) QWEST ( ) SEATTLE CITY UGHT () PUGET SOUND ENERGY () HIGHUNE WATER DISTRICT ( ) SEATTLE WATER DEPARTMENT ( ) AT &T CABLE SERVICES () KENT PLANNING DEPT ( ) TUKWILA CITY DEPARTMENTS: () PUBLIC WORKS () FIRE () POLICE () FINANCE ( ) PLANNING (.) BUILDING () PARKS & REC. () MAYOR ( ) CITY CLERK ( ) PUGET SOUND REGIONAL COUNCIL () SW K C CHAMBER OF COMMERCE ( ) MUCKLESHOOT INDIAN TRIBE ( ) CULTURAL RESOURCES PROGRAM ( ) FISHERIES PROGRAM ( ) WILDUFE PROGRAM ( ) SEATTLE TIMES ( ) SOUTH COUNTY JOURNAL CHECKUST: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEWISHOREUNE PERMIT MAILINGS P:\ ADMINISTRATIVEIFORMSCHKLlST .DOC FEDERAL AGENCIES WASHINGTON STATE AGENCIES () U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ( ) U.S. DEPT OF H.U.O. () NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE () DEPT OF SOCIAL & HEALTH SERV. () DEPT OF ECOLOGY. SHORELAND DIV 04 DEPT OF ECOLOGY, SEPA DMSION• ( ) OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL. SEND CHKLIST W/ DETERMINATIONS • SEND SITE MAPS WITH DECISION KING COUNTY AGENCIES SCHOOLS/LIBRARIES UTILITIES CITY AGENCIES OTHER LOCAL AGENCIES MEDIA () HEALTH DEPT () PORT OF SEATTLE () KC. DEV & ENVIR SERVICES -SEPA INFO CNTR ( ) K.C. TRANSIT DIVISION - SEPA OFFICIAL ( ) KC. LAND & WATER RESOURCES ( ) FOSTER UBRARY ( ) K C PUBLIC UBRARY ()HIGHLINE SCHOOL DISTRICT () SEATTLE SCHOOL DISTRICT ( ) RENTON SCHOOL DISTRICT ( ) OLYMPIC PIPELINE O VAL -VUE SEWER DISTRICT () WATER DISTRICT #20 ( ) WATER DISTRICT #125 ( ) CITY OF RENTON PUBLIC WORKS () BRYN MAWR- LAKERIDGE SEWERIWATER DISTRICT ( ) RENTON PLANNING DEPT () CITY OF SEA -TAC () CITY OF BURIEN ( ) TUKWLA PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS ( ) TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS ( ) CITY OF SEATTLE - SEPA INFO CENTER - DCLU ( ) STRATEGIC PLANNING OFFICE' • NOTICE OF ALL SEATTLE RELATED PLNG PROJ. () DUWAMISH INDIAN TRIBE (4P.S. AIR POLLUTION CLEAN AGENCY () SOUND TRANSIT () DUWAMISH RIVER CLEAN -UP COALITION 'SEND NOTICE OF ALL APPLICATIONS ON DUWAMISH RIVER ( ) HIGHLINE TIMES ( ) CI.TUKIMLA.WA.US.WWW a c * - 14 _3 rizz,_ mt. Jam Free Printing Use Avery® TEMPLATE 5960TM Catherine Drews Foster Pepper & Shefelman 1111 3rd Av. Suite 3400 Seattle, WA 98101 Robert Icsman Jo -Ann Stores Inc. 5555 Darrow Road Hudson, OH 44236 Bob Scofield 4212 Hunts Point Road Bellevue, WA 98004 Henry Jameson Jameson Babbitt Stites & Lombard 999 3rd Ave., Suite 1900 Seattle, WA 98104 -4001 Lance Mueller Lance Mueller & Assoc. 130 Lakeside Ave Seattle, WA 98122 m0965 ®AU3AV www.avery.com 1- 800 -GO -AVERY Melody McCutcheon Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson 500 Galland Building 1221 2nd Av Seattle, WA 98101 -2925 Chuck Wiegman JSH Properties 14900 Interurban Av S Suite 210 Tukwila, WA 98168 -4654 Dana Moore Ethan Allen 17333 Southcenter Py. Tukwila, WA 98188 Brad Decker DDCI 117 East Louisa Street #230 Seattle, WA 98102 Aa3AV 1 wonGaae•MMM r Steve Brunette ING Real Estate 1001 Fourth Av. Suite 3040 Seattle, WA 98154 Brad Renner Ethan Allen Service Center 20120 72 Av. S. Kent, WA 98032 Joshua Brower Mentor Law Group 1100 Market Pl. Tower 2025 1st Ave. Seattle, WA 98121 Richard Noonan Jo -Ann Stores 2515 4th Ave Seattle, WA 98121 D AVERY® 5960TM .096S 31V1dW31®Many esn 6upuud eaij wer Smooth Feed Sheets 262304 9024 ALFRED & ELLEN LIU PO BOX 95235 SEATTLE, WA 98145 262304 9067 CLPF- TUKWILA 350 S GRAND AVE #25TH LOS ANGELES, CA 90071 262304 9110 TUKWILA KIR 301 MINKLER BLVD TUKWILA, WA 98188 262304 9117 J C PENNEY CO INC PO BOX 10001 DALLAS, TX 75301 262304 9136 CLPF- TUKWILA 350 SAaVE #25TH LOS LES, CA 90071 Brad Decker 117 E. Louisa St., Suite #230 Seattle, WA 98102 AVERY® Address Labels 262304 9063 MASAO MIKAMI PO BOX 256 DUBLIN, OH 43017 262304 9067 CLPF -TUK 350 S AVE #25TH LQANGELES, CA 90071 262304 9110 TUKWIL 304 -MT11 CLER BLVD TUKWILA, WA 98188 262304 9134 RAMOS PROPERTIES LLC 133 SW 158TH ST BURIEN, WA 98166 r 812520 0410 NORTH) T MBK 7690,SW MOHAWK ST TJdALATIN, OR 97062 Tony Roma PO Box 95235 Seattle, WA 98145 uSt te,iipt a tor )1bU-' 262304 9066 WAIKIKI GRAND PARTNERS LP 250 KAWAIHAE ST #20E HONOLULU, HI 96825 262304 9096 CASTELLO LAND CO INC PO BOX 40629 BELLEVUE, WA 98015 262304 9110 TUKWILA KI 301 M R BLVD TL)IrcWILA, WA 98188 262304 9135 NORTHW Z3 7690 MOHAWK ST ATIN, OR 97062 Ing Real Estate Investment Mgmt. 1001 Fourth Ave., Suite 3040 Seattle, WA 98154 Laser 5160® • STORE MANAGER Tony Romas 17305 Southcenter Parkway Tukwila, WA 98188 STORE MANAGER Borders Books 17501 Ste 201 Southcenter Parkway Tukwila, WA 98188 STORE MANAGER Pet Smart 17585 Southcenter Parkway Tukwila, WA 98188 STORE MANAGER COLD STONE CREAMERY 17304 Southcenter Parkway Tukwila, WA 98188 STORE MANAGER WASHBURN PIANO 17312 Southcenter Parkway Tukwila, WA 98188 STORE MANAGER BERGMAN LUGGAGE 17328 Southcenter Parkway Tukwila, WA 98188 STORE MANAGER PAC SUN 17340 Southcenter Parkway Tukwila, WA 98188 STORE MANAGER BEST BUY 17364 Southcenter Parkway Tukwila, WA 98188 STORE MANAGER COMP USA 17400 Southcenter Parkway Tukwila, WA 98188 STORE MANAGER SPRINT 17430 Southcenter Parkway Tukwila, WA 98188 oTORE MANAGER Ethan Allen 17333 Southcenter Parkway Tukwila, WA 98188 STORE MANAGER Linens & Things 17501 Ste 400 Southcenter Parkway Tukwila, WA 98188 STORE MANAGER AZTECA RESTAURANT 17555Southcenter Parkway Tukwila, WA 98188 STORE MANAGER QUIZNOS SUBS 17308 Southcenter Parkway Tukwila, WA 98188 STORE MANAGER HALLMARK CARDS 17320 Southcenter Parkway Tukwila, WA 98188 STORE MANAGER BATH & BODY WORKS 17332 Southcenter Parkway Tukwila, WA 98188 STORE MANAGER MARSHALLS 17348 Southcenter Parkway Tukwila, WA 98188 STORE MANAGER STANFORDS RESTAURANT 17380 Southcenter Parkway Tukwila, WA 98188 STORE MANAGER TACO DEL MAR 17410 Southcenter Parkway Tukwila, WA 98188 STORE MANAGER STARBUCKS 17480 Southcenter Parkway Tukwila, WA 98188 STORE MANAGER Joe Ann Etc 17501 Southcenter Parkway Tukwila, WA 98188 STORE MANAGER Banfield Pet Hospital 17585 Southcenter Parkway Tukwila, WA 98188 STORE MANAGER RED ROBIN 17300 Southcenter Parkway Tukwila, WA 98188 STORE MANAGER— MALI THAI 17310 Southcenter Parkway Tukwila, WA 98188 STORE MANAGER 3 DAY BLINDS 17326 Southcenter Parkway Tukwila, WA 98188 STORE MANAGER AMERICAS BEST CONTACTS 17334 Southcenter Parkway Tukwila, WA 98188 STORE MANAGER PARTY CITY 17356 Southcenter Parkway Tukwila, WA 98188 STORE MANAGER PEER. 1 IMPORTS 17388 Southcenter Parkway Tukwila, WA 98188 STORE MANAGER CAMERAS WEST 17420 Southcenter Parkway Tukwila, WA 98188 STORE MANAGER BABIES R US 17500 Southcenter Parkway Tukwila, WA 98188 Dept. Of Community Development City of Tukwila AFFIDAVIT OF DISTRIBUTION � HEREBY DECLARE THAT: I, ,, nn� ,� , ` Vim �•(Jl f:419,_ Notice of Public Hearing 0,141/144/(A pA r„ Project Number: Determination of Non - Significance, Person requesting mailing: t) Eft Cl &A Notice of Public Meeting Mitigated Determination of Non - Significance Board of Adjustment Agenda Pkt Determination of Significance & Scoping Notice Board of Appeals Agenda Pkt Notice of Action Planning Commission Agenda Pkt Official Notice Short Subdivision Agenda Notice of Application Shoreline Mgmt Permit Notice of Application for Shoreline Mgmt Permit -- __ FAX To Seattle Times Classifieds Mail: Gail Muller Classifieds PO Box 70 - Seattle WA 98111 Other Was mailed to each of the addresses listed on this t day of r year 20 05 P:GINAWYNETTA/FORMS /AFFIDAVIT -MAIL 08/29/003:31 PM V in the Project Name: SC-3 g, -4 , r„ Project Number: s Mailer's Signature: St/ 4z,i'L' 2 4 , v c Jz .. Person requesting mailing: t) Eft Cl &A Was mailed to each of the addresses listed on this t day of r year 20 05 P:GINAWYNETTA/FORMS /AFFIDAVIT -MAIL 08/29/003:31 PM V in the Nora Gierloff - Please Note: Hearing har en Rescheduled �. Page From: Jane Cantu To: cmjoanh @aol.com; david.fenton @comcast.com; dennisrobertsonl @excite.com; duffie@tukwila.wednet.edu; jimhagg @comcast.net; Mayor Mullet; Pmcarter @jps.net; pslinder @comcast.net Date: 1/28/05 9:10AM Subject: Please Note: Hearing has been Rescheduled Good morning all, The appeal of the Design Review Approval - SC -3 Retail Center (17401 Southcenter Parkway) a quasi-judicial hearing originally scheduled to be heard before Council on February 7th, has been rescheduled to March 7th. According to DCD staff, one of the attorneys involved in the matter did not receive notice of the February 7 hearing. City Attorney Shelley Kerslake directed staff to reschedule the hearing. When you pick up your mail at City Hall, you will find the hearing materials in black binders on the counter above your mailboxes. They were distributed yesterday in anticipation of the February 7th date. Staff has requested you hold onto the binders for the extended period. This is a closed record, quasi-judicial hearing which will consolidate two separate appeals to the project. We are taking steps to notify all interested parties and the general public of the change in schedule. If you have questions, please give me a call at 206 -433 -1830. Have a great weekend and enjoy your "free" Monday evening. Jane CC: Bob Baker; Nora Gierloff; Rhonda Berry Nora Gierloff - SC -3 Hearing Postponed From: Nora Gierloff To: Brad @seattleforrent.net; Brower@mentorlaw.com; hjameson@jbsl.com; Mbm @hcmp.com Date: 1/28/05 8:46AM Subject: SC -3 Hearing Postponed The Mentor Law Group was inadvertently left off of the SC -3 hearing notice mailing. To remedy this the City will postpone the appeal hearing until March 7th to allow time to renotice. The staff memo and binders containing the record will still be available for pickup today. I apologize for any inconvenience. Nora Gierloff Planning Supervisor City of Tukwila DCD (206) 433 -7141 CC: Jack Pace; Shelley Kerslake; Steve Lancaster Page 1" 01/26/2005 WED 10:38 FAX 10002/009 VIA FACSIMILE 1100 Market Place Tower • 2025 First Avenue • Seattle, Washington 98121 Tit. 206.493.2300 - v *x 206.493.23I0 Ms. Nora Gierloff Planning Supervisor Dept. of Community Development City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Blvd:, Suite 100 Tukwila, Washington 98188 Mentor Law Group TUC • January 25, 2005 RE: City of Tukwila /BAR Appeal No. L- 04-036 Dear Ms. Gierloff and Ms. Kerslake: We represent the appellant, Jo -Ann Stores, Inc., with regard to the above- referenced matter. On December 10, 2004, our client filed a Notice of Appeal with the City: A copy of the Notice of Appeal, showing the City's receipt stamp, is attached.. • Puisuant to Tukwila City Code 18.104.160, the City is required to provide our client notice at least 14 -days prior to holding hearing.in this matter. To date, we have not received any such notice. Please provide us the required Notice at least 14 days prior to the hearing. Enclosure CC: _Bob Icsman (w /out end.) • . Melody McCutcheon (w /out encl.) Henry C. Jameson (w /out encl.) Joshua C. Allen Brower direct 206.493.2316 browcr ®mcntorlaw.com Ms. Shelley Kerslake City Attorney Kenyon Disend, "PLLC 11 Front Street South. . Issaquah, WA 98027 -3820 , Sincerely, MENTOR JAW G OUP, PLLC JOSHUA C. ALLEN GROWER PHONE (206) 545 -4964 FAX (206) 545 -4952 TRANSMITTAL DATE: 1/24/2005 TO; Nora Crierloff FROM: Brad Decker RE: 17401 Southcenter Parkway NOTE: Nora , See attached Declaration of Common Parking Covenant. This is (I believe) the document that we presented to the BAR in reference to the complaint that ING had about our common parking agreement. Brad Decker DECKER DEVELOPMENT & CONSTRUCTION, INC. 117 EAST LOUISA ST. #230 SEATTLE, WA 98102 If you have any question please call me at 206 - 545 -4964. Number of Pages: (Including this Transmittal) If you do not receive all the pages of this fax, please call 206 - 545 -4964 ZLO /LOOIj I000 Z96179b990Z ?(VA ZZ :ZL 9002 /bZ /L0 Henry C. Jameson Member (206) 516 -3202 hjameson @jbsl.com Ms. Shelley Kerslake City Attorney Tukwila City Hall 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 Ms. Sarah E. Mack Mentor Law Group, PLLC 1100 Market Place Tower 2025 First Avenue Seattle, WA 98121 Re: Design Review Appeal, L04 -036, 17401 Southcenter Parkway Dear Counsel: JAMESON BABBITT STITES & LOMBARD, P.L.L.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW January 21, 2005 Ms. Melody B. McCutchen Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson 500 Galland Building 1221 Second Avenue Seattle, WA 98101 -2925 RECEIVED FJAN 2 4 2005' DEVELOPMENT Please accept this letter as our notice of appearance in the above appeal on behalf of the applicant, Brad Decker of Decker Development & Construction, Inc. We will be appearing for the applicant at the hearing on the appeal, and we ask that correspondence concerning the appeal be directed to us. Thank you for your cooperation. 99999 \11111\265445.V01 HCJ 999 THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 1900 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104-4001 Very truly yours, JAMESON BABBITT SHIES & LOMBARD, P.L.L.C. By: Henry C. Jameson TEL 206 292 1994 FAX 206 292 1995 January 21, 2005 Page 2 cc: Ms. Nora Gierloff, Planning Supervisor Mr. Rich Hill Mr. Brad Decker 99999 \11111\265445.V01 HCJ City of Tukwila Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARIN January 19, 2005 RE: Appeal of the design review approval for the SC -3 Retail Building at 17401 Southcenter Boulevard On November 18, 2004 the Tukwila Board of Architectural Review (BAR) granted design approval for a strip retail building on the site of the existing Winners Restaurant on Southcenter Parkway. See the reverse of this page for the approved site plan for the project. Two notices of appeal of the BAR's decision were filed within the 21 day appeal period by attorneys representing JoAnn Stores and ING Real Estate. This appeal will be heard by the Tukwila City Council on February 7 at 7:00 PM in the Tukwila City Council Chambers. While all interested parties may attend the hearing, it is a closed record hearing so only the parties to the appeal will be permitted to testify. The project files are available for review at the City of Tukwila. To view the files, you may request them at the permit counter of the Tukwila Department of Community Development (DCD), located at 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite 100. If you have any additional questions or comments please call me at the City of Tukwila Planning Division, (206) 431 -3670. Sincere y, ora Gierloff Planning Supervisor Steven M Mullet, Mayor 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206- 431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 STORE MANAGER Tony Romas 17305 Southcenter Parkway Tukwila, WA 98188 STORE MANAGER Borders Books 17501 Ste 201 Southcenter Parkway Tukwila, WA 98188 STORE MANAGER Pet Smart 17585 Southcenter Parkway Tukwila, WA 98188 STORE MANAGER COLD STONE CREAMERY 17304 Southcenter Parkway Tukwila, WA 98188 STORE MANAGER WASHBURN PIANO 17312 Southcenter Parkway Tukwila, WA 98188 STORE MANAGER BERGMAN LUGGAGE 17328 Southcenter Parkway Tukwila, WA 98188 STORE MANAGER PAC SUN 17340 Southcenter Parkway Tukwila, WA 98188 STORE MANAGER BEST BUY 17364 Southcenter Parkway Tukwila, WA 98188 STORE MANAGER COMP USA 17400 Southcenter Parkway Tukwila, WA 98188 STORE MANAGER SPRINT 17430 Southcenter Parkway Tukwila, WA 98188 aTORE MANAGER Ethan Allen 17333 Southcenter Parkway Tukwila, WA 98188 STORE MANAGER Linens & Things 17501 Ste 400 Southcenter Parkway Tukwila, WA 98188 STORE MANAGER AZTECA RESTAURANT 17555Southcenter Parkway Tukwila, WA 98188 STORE MANAGER QUIZNOS SUBS 17308 Southcenter Parkway Tukwila, WA 98188 STORE MANAGER HALLMARK CARDS 17320 Southcenter Parkway Tukwila, WA 98188 STORE MANAGER BATH & BODY WORKS 17332 Southcenter Parkway Tukwila, WA 98188 STORE MANAGER MARSHALLS 17348 Southcenter Parkway Tukwila, WA 98188 STORE MANAGER STANFORDS RESTAURANT 17380 Southcenter Parkway Tukwila, WA 98188 STORE MANAGER TACO DEL MAR 17410 Southcenter Parkway Tukwila, WA 98188 STORE MANAGER STARBUCKS 17480 Southcenter Parkway Tukwila, WA 98188 STORE MANAGER Joe Ann Etc 17501 Southcenter Parkway Tukwila, WA 98188 STORE MANAGER Banfield Pet Hospital 17585 Southcenter Parkway Tukwila, WA 98188 STORE MANAGER RED ROBIN 17300 Southcenter Parkway Tukwila, WA 98188 STORE MANAGER— MALI THAI 17310 Southcenter Parkway Tukwila, WA 98188 STORE MANAGER 3 DAY BLINDS 17326 Southcenter Parkway Tukwila, WA 98188 STORE MANAGER AMERICAS BEST CONTACTS 17334 Southcenter Parkway Tukwila, WA 98188 STORE MANAGER PARTY CITY 17356 Southcenter Parkway Tukwila, WA 98188 STORE MANAGER PEIR 1 IMPORTS 17388 Southcenter Parkway Tukwila, WA 98188 STORE MANAGER CAMERAS WEST 17420 Southcenter Parkway Tukwila, WA 98188 STORE MANAGER BABIES R US 17500 Southcenter Parkway Tukwila, WA 98188 .Smooth Feed Sheets"' 262304 9024 ALFRED & ELLEN LIU PO BOX 95235 SEATTLE, WA 98145 262304 9067 CLPF- TUKWILA 350 S GRAND AVE #25TH LOS ANGELES, CA 90071 262304 9110 TUKWILA KIR 301 MINKLER BLVD TUKWILA, WA 98188 262304 9117 J C PENNEY CO INC PO BOX 10001 DALLAS, TX 75301 262304 9136 CLPF - TUKWILA 350 S GVE #25TH LOS LES, CA 90071 Brad Decker 117 E. Louisa St., Suite #230 Seattle, WA 98102 AVERY® Address Labels 262304 9063 MASAO MIKAMI PO BOX 256 DUBLIN, OH 43017 262304 9067 CLPF -TUK 350 S AVE #25TH LQZ ANGELES, CA 90071 262304 9110 TUKWIL 30 ER BLVD TUKWILA, WA 98188 262304 9134 RAMOS PROPERTIES LLC 133 SW 158TH ST BURIEN, WA 98166 812520 04110 NORT MBK 7690"SW MOHAWK ST TM!ALATIN, OR 97062 Tony Roma PO Box 95235 Seattle, WA 98145 262304 9066 WAIKIKI GRAND PARTNERS LP 250 KAWAIHAE ST #20E HONOLULU, HI 96825 262304 9096 CASTELLO LAND CO INC PO BOX 40629 BELLEVUE, WA 98015 262304 9110 TUKWILA KI 301 M use temptace ror 516u'� R BLVD TUI WILA, WA 98188 262304 9135 NORT� 7690 6 C� MOHAWK ST ATIN, OR 97062 Ing Real Estate Investment Mgmt. 1001 Fourth Ave., Suite 3040 Seattle, WA 98154 Laser 5160® Dept. Of Community Development City of Tukwila • AFFIDAVIT OF DISTRIBUTION. /, S imaivi 646(74_14EREBY DECLARE THAT: „ Notice of Public Hearing Determination of Non - Significance Notice of Public Meeting Mitigated Determination of Non- Significance ` �� �� Board of Adjustment Agenda Pkt Determination of Significance & Scoping Notice Mailer's Signature: A46(11A Board of Appeals Agenda Pkt • Notice of Action C� -- th,k Planning Commission Agenda Pkt Official Notice Short Subdivision Agenda Notice of Application Shoreline Mgmt Permit Notice of Application for Shoreline Mgmt Permit __ __ FAX To Seattle Times Classifieds Mail: Gail Muller Classifieds PO Box 70 - Seattle WA 98111 Other Was mailed to each of the addresses 7 i sted on this 1 of ,I2,GC., in the year 2005 P:GINAWYNETTA/FORMS /AFFIDAVIT -MAIL 08/29/003:31 PM Project Name: S C > ,�,� ` �� �� 1 / S - . b61U Project Number: Mailer's Signature: A46(11A J4_ • Person requesting mailing: rJ yt C� -- th,k Was mailed to each of the addresses 7 i sted on this 1 of ,I2,GC., in the year 2005 P:GINAWYNETTA/FORMS /AFFIDAVIT -MAIL 08/29/003:31 PM January 14, 2005 Brad Decker DDCI 117 East Louisa Street #230 Seattle, WA 98102 RE: 17401 Southcenter Boulevard D05 -006 Winners Demolition D05 -008 SC -3 Retail Shell Construction Dear Brad, Cizy of Tukwila Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director I am writing to clarify the City's position on your current development permit applications. We will process your demolition and grading permit D05 -006 and issue it when our review is complete. However any decision to act on that permit and clear the site is at your own risk and does not bind the City to any subsequent action on the SC - building. Though you have applied for a building permit to construct the SC -3 retail shell approved by the BAR under file L04 -036, this cannot be issued until the appeals have been resolved. If the City Council elects to remand the project back to the BAR for redesign you will be required to submit revisions to D05 -008 to match any eventual reapproval. If you do decide to clear and grade the project site prior to a resolution to the design review appeals please plan on leaving it in finished condition. For example seeding or sodding the site rather than just leaving it with straw and a silt fence until the building permit is issued. If you have any questions please call me at (206) 431 -3670. Sincerel , ora Gierloff Planning Supervisor Cc: Brenda Holt, Permit Coordinator Q:\SC3\DeckerPermits.DOC Steven M. Mullet, Mayor 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 MICHAEL R. KENYON BRUCE L. DISEND SANDRA S. MEADOWcROFT SHELLEY M. KERSLAKE STEPHEN R. KING HEIDI L. BROSIUS Melody B. McCutcheon Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson 500 Galland Building 1221 Second Avenue Seattle, Washington 98101 -2925 Dear Ms. McCutcheon: KENYON DISEND, PLLO -/ THE MUNIQPAL LAW FIRM 11 FRONT STREET SOUTH ISSAQUAH, WASHINGTON 98027 -3820 (425) 392 -7090 (206) 628 -9059 FAX (425) 392 -7071 January 14, 2005 Re: City of Tukwila/BAR Appeal No. L04 -036 Receiv /JAN 181005 COivim OPAIE KERRI A. BERGLAND MINDY A. ROSTAMI SHANNON L. GARVIN LACEY L. MARTIN PETER B. BECKWITH JOSEPH P. LOUGHLIN THOMAS J. GuII.FOIL Thank you for your letter dated December 30, 2004 addressed to Nora Gierloff and Shelley Kerslake. I reviewed this matter in Ms. Kerslake's absence. On page 9 of the Second Supplemental Staff Report dated November 4 and prepared for use at the hearing of November 18, the Board of Architectural Review plainly adopts findings and conclusions, expressly and by reference to other staff reports, pursuant to TMC 18.108.040. I am told that the tapes of that meeting likewise reflect the Board's motion adopting this Second Supplemental Staff Report. With respect to your inquiries regarding allocation of time and the roles of staff and the city attorney, please refer to TMC 2.04.100(9) and Resolution No. 1335. With respect to the city attorney, please also refer to Port of Seattle v. Rio and Hangartner v. Seattle, both of which stand for the proposition that a public agency is entitled to legal representation to the same extent as a private party. Please let me know if you have any further questions. Thanks. Very truly yours, KENYAN DISEND, PLLC cc: Josh Brower Shelley Kerslake Nora Gierloff . 1 F:W PPS \CIV\Tukwila\Letter\McCutcheon - BAR appeal.doc/MS/01 /14/05 Michael R. Kenyon SERVING WASHINGTON CmES SINCE 1993 Page 1 Nora Gierloff - RE: SC -3 Building Appe From: "Melody McCutcheon" <mbm@hcmp.com> To: "Nora Gierloff <ngierloff©ci.tukwila.wa.us> Date: 1/14/05 2:15PM Subject: RE: SC -3 Building Appeal Thank you, Nora. I appreciate the information. Melody Original Message- - From: Nora Gierloff [ mailto :ngierloff@ci.tukwila.wa.us] Sent: Friday, January 14, 2005 11:44 AM To: Melody McCutcheon Cc: Wynetta Bivens Subject: SC -3 Building Appeal Hello Melody, You should be receiving a response to your letter of 12/30 from Mike Kenyon, one of Tukwila's City Attorneys. We are finishing up the hearing transcripts and expect to have them available on Tuesday the 18th. Please contact Wynetta Bivens if you would like to have a set copied for purchase. Nora Gierloff Planning Supervisor City of Tukwila DCD (206) 433 -7141 HCMP HILLIS C LARK MARTIN & PETERSON law offices TT Ms. Nora Gierloff Planning Supervisor Department of Community Development City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 December 30, 2004 Re: Design Review Appeal, L04 - 036 Dear Ms. Gierloff and Ms. Kerslake: TIT MERITAS LAW FIRMS WORLDWIDE Ms. Shelley Kerslake City Attorney Tukwila City Hall 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 FEC IV /JAN 0 0 On December 10, 2004, we filed a Notice of Appeal regarding the design review approval for a proposed retail building at 17401 Southcenter Parkway (Project File No. L04 -036). On December 16, 2004, we received a letter from Ms. Gierloff stating that the closed record hearing was tentatively scheduled for February 7, 2005. We are writing to clarify the procedures for this appeal. We are aware that the City's Code does not set out a specific process for a design review closed record hearing. Also, we understand that the City has not previously had a design review decision appealed to the City Council. In these circumstances, it seems appropriate to try and achieve a common understanding of what the procedure will be. To facilitate this, we are writing this letter to you, with copies to the other parties to this appeal, i.e. Mentor Law Group for appellant Jo -Ann Stores, Inc., and to the applicant, in order to invite comment. Both of the appeals filed in this matter raise procedural and substantive issues. The procedural issue is that the Board of Architectural Review failed to issue the written findings and conclusions required by Section 18.108.040 C of the City Code. We believe that the City Council must address this issue as a threshold matter, since if the Council agrees, this matter must be remanded to the Board of Architectural Review for the required written findings and conclusions before this matter can be heard further by the Council. 500 Galland Building 1221 Second Avenue Seattle, Washington 98101 -2925 phone 206.623.1745 fax 206.623.7789 www.hcmp.com A PROFESSIONAL SERVICE CORPORATION Ms. Nora Gierloff and Ms. Kerslake December 30, 2004 Page 2 of 3 Given the critical nature of this threshold question, we believe this issue needs to be briefed by the parties, including the City Attorney. This is an important procedural issue for this case in particular, and for the City in general. Secondly, we ask for clarification of the following items so that the parties may properly prepare for the City Council proceeding: • Will the City prepare transcripts of the Board of Architectural Review meetings? In order for the Council to have a record of the proceedings, and for all of the parties to be able to refer to the record, such transcripts must be prepared. Alternatively, if the City believes this is the obligation of the appellant(s), then please advise us of that conclusion and the reasons for it. • As mentioned above, we believe the procedural issue raised in this case needs to be briefed and considered first. Another approach would be to brief all issues in a single brief based upon an agreed schedule. Assuming a February 7 hearing date, we propose the following briefing schedule: Opening Briefs by Appellants due January 19th' Response Briefs by the City and Applicant due January 26th, and Reply Briefs by Appellants due February 2nd. Of course, if the City is going to prepare transcripts of the meetings, those transcripts would need to be prepared sufficiently in advance of the deadline for opening briefs. Thus, preparation of the transcripts needs to be coordinated with this suggested briefing schedule. • With respect to the hearing itself, is it possible for the parties to agree upon an allocation of time and suggest such allocation to the Council? If that is the case, we would suggest the following allocation of time: 30 minutes for both Appellants' opening presentations, 45 minutes for the City and Applicant, and 15 minutes for both Appellants' rebuttal. This allocation results in 45 minutes for each "side" for a total of a 90- minute hearing. • Please clarify the role of City staff and the City Attorney in this proceeding. Does City staff defend the decision of the Board of Architectural Review or do Board Members have that function? What role does the City Attorney have in this appeal? HCMP Ms. Nora Gierloff and Ms. Kerslake December 30, 2004 Page 3 of 3 MBM:kat E -Mail: MBM @hcmp.com cc: Josh Brower, Mentor Law Group Brad Decker, Applicant ING Clarion Partners #292295 18438 -002 69jb01!.doc Very truly yours, We appreciate your consideration of our questions and proposals and look forward to working out a common understanding of the appeal hearing procedure in this matter. I would be happy to arrange a conference call between the parties if this would assist in discussion and resolution of these issues. Melody B. McCutcheon HCMP City of Tukwila Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director MEMORANDUM TO: Members of the City Council �``'',,�� FROM: Nora Gierloff, Planning Supervisor' RE: L04 -036 SC -3 Retail Building DATE: December 15, 2004 I am writing to notify you that the design review application for the SC -3 Retail Building at 17401 Southcenter Boulevard (existing Winners Restaurant) has been appealed by two parties. This project was approved by the Board of Architectural Review at the November 18, 2004 meeting. The notices of appeal are attached for your information. The appeal will be in the form of a quasi-judicial closed record hearing before the Tukwila City Council, tentatively scheduled for February 7 2005. The remedy requested by both parties is to remand the case back to the BAR for further consideration. You will receive additional information including a staff report, transcripts of the hearings and the original staff reports with attachments in advance of the hearing. If you have any questions please call me at (206) 433 -7141. Enclosures L04 -082 Appeal filed by Jo -Ann Stores Inc. L04 -083 Appeal filed by ING Clarion Partners Cc: Mayor Mullet Rhonda Berry, City Administrator Q:\SC3\NoticeofAppeal- Council.DOC Steven M. Mullet, Mayor 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 City of Tukwila Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director MEMORANDUM TO: Members of the Board of Architectural Review FROM: Nora Gierloff, Planning Supervisor RE: L04 -036 SC -3 Retail Building DATE: December 15, 2004 I am writing to notify you that Brad Decker's design review application for the SC - Retail Building at 17401 Southcenter Boulevard has been appealed by two parties. The appeal will be in the form of a quasi-judicial closed record hearing before the Tukwila City Council, tentatively scheduled for February 7 2005. The remedy requested by both parties is to remand the case back to the BAR for further consideration. If you have any questions please call me at (206) 433 -7141. Q:\SC3\NoticeofAppeal- BAR.DOC Steven M. Mullet, Mayor 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 December 15, 2004 Brad Decker DDCI 117 East Louisa Street #230 Seattle, WA 98102 RE: L04 -036 SC -3 Retail Building Dear Brad, I am writing to notify you that your design review application for the SC -3 Retail Building at 17401 Southcenter Boulevard has been appealed by two parties. The appeal will be in the form of a consolidated closed record hearing before the Tukwila City Council, tentatively scheduled for February 7 2005. We are unable to schedule it earlier due to the time required to prepare verbatim transcripts of all three hearings and constraints with the City Council agendas. You will receive a notice of hearing closer to the hearing date. If you have any questions please call me at (206) 431 -3670. Sincerely,,:> Nora Gierloff Planning Supervisor Enclosures L04 -082 Appeal filed by Jo -Ann Stores Inc. L04 -083 Appeal filed by ING Clarion Partners Q:\SC3\NoticeofAppeal- Decker.DOC City of Tukwila Steven M. Mullet, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 December 15, 2004 Catherine Drews Foster Pepper & Shefelman 1111 3rd Av. Suite 3400 Seattle, WA 98101 RE: L04 -036 SC -3 Retail Building Dear Ms. Drews, Cizy of Tukwila Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director I am writing to notify you that the design review application for the SC -3 Retail Building at 17401 Southcenter Boulevard has been appealed. You are a party of record to this application. The appeal will be in the form of a closed record hearing before the Tukwila City Council, tentatively scheduled for February 7 2005. You will receive a notice of hearing closer to the hearing date. If you have any questions please call me at (206) 431 -3670. Sincerely, Nora Gierloff Planning Supervisor Enclosures L04 -082 Appeal filed by Jo -Ann Stores Inc. L04 -083 Appeal filed by ING Clarion Partners Q:\SC3\NoticeofAppeal.DOC Steven M. Mullet, Mayor 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431 - 3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 - 3665 December 15, 2004 Melody McCutcheon Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson 500 Galland Building 1221 2nd Av Seattle, WA 98101 -2925 RE: L04 -036 SC -3 Retail Building Dear Ms. McCutcheon, City of Tukwila Steven M. Mullet, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director I am writing to notify you that the design review application for the SC -3 Retail Building at 17401 Southcenter Boulevard has been appealed. You are a party of record to this application. The appeal will be in the form of a closed record hearing before the Tukwila City Council, tentatively scheduled for February 7 2005. You will receive a notice of hearing closer to the hearing date. If you have any questions please call me at (206) 431 -3670. Sincerel Nora Gierloff Planning Supervisor Enclosures L04 -082 Appeal filed by Jo -Ann Stores Inc. L04 -083 Appeal filed by 1NG Clarion Partners Q:\SC3\NoticeofAppeal- McCutcheon.DOC 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 December 15, 2004 Steve Brunette ING Real Estate 1001 Fourth Av. Suite 3040 Seattle, WA 98154 RE: L04 -036 SC -3 Retail Building Dear Mr. Brunette, City of Tukwila Steven M. Mullet, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director I am writing to notify you that the design review application for the SC -3 Retail Building at 17401 Southcenter Boulevard has been appealed. You are a party of record to this application. The appeal will be in the form of a closed record hearing before the Tukwila City Council, tentatively scheduled for February 7 2005. You will receive a notice of hearing closer to the hearing date. If you have any questions please call me at (206) 431 -3670. Sincerely Nora Gierloff Planning Supervisor Enclosures L04 -082 Appeal filed by Jo -Ann Stores Inc. L04 -083 Appeal filed by ING Clarion Partners Q:\SC3\NoticeofAppeal-Brunette.DOC 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 December 15, 2004 Robert Icsman Jo -Ann Stores Inc. 5555 Darrow Road Hudson, OH 44236 RE: L04 -036 SC -3 Retail Building Dear Mr. Icsman, I am writing to notify you that the design review application for the SC -3 Retail Building at 17401 Southcenter Boulevard has been appealed. You are a party of record to this application. The appeal will be in the form of a closed record hearing before the Tukwila City Council, tentatively scheduled for February 7 2005. You will receive a notice of hearing closer to the hearing date. If you have any questions please call me at (206) 431 -3670. Sincerel Nora Gierloff Planning Supervisor Cizy of Tukwila Enclosures L04 -082 Appeal filed by Jo -Ann Stores Inc. L04 -083 Appeal filed by ING Clarion Partners Q: \.SC3 \NoticeofAppeal- Icsman.DOC Steven M. Mullet, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 December 15, 2004 Chuck Wiegman JSH Properties 14900 Interurban Av S Suite 210 Tukwila, WA 98168 -4654 RE: L04 -036 SC -3 Retail Building Dear Mr. Wiegman, I am writing to notify you that the design review application for the SC -3 Retail Building at 17401 Southcenter Boulevard has been appealed. You are a party of record to this application. The appeal will be in the form of a closed record hearing before the Tukwila City Council, tentatively scheduled for February 7 2005. You will receive a notice of hearing closer to the hearing date. If you have any questions please call me at (206) 431 -3670. Sincerel Nora Gierloff Planning Supervisor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director City of Tukwila Enclosures L04 -082 Appeal filed by Jo -Ann Stores Inc. L04 -083 Appeal filed by ING Clarion Partners Q:\SC3NoticeofAppeal-Wiegman.DOC Steven M Mullet, Mayor 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 December 15, 2004 city of Tukwila Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director Brad Renner Ethan Allen Service Center 20120 72 Av. S. Kent, WA 98032 RE: L04 -036 SC -3 Retail Building Dear Mr. Renner, I am writing to notify you that the design review application for the SC -3 Retail Building at 17401 Southcenter Boulevard has been appealed. You are a party of record to this application. The appeal will be in the form of a closed record hearing before the Tukwila City Council, tentatively scheduled for February 7 2005. You will receive a notice of hearing closer to the hearing date. If you have any questions please call me at (206) 431 -3670. Sincere Nora Gierlo Planning Supervisor Enclosures L04 -082 Appeal filed by Jo -Ann Stores Inc. L04 -083 Appeal filed by 1NG Clarion Partners Q:\.SC3WoticeofAppeal- Renner.DOC Steven M. Mullet, Mayor 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206- 431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 December 15, 2004 Bob Scofield 4212 Hunts Point Road Bellevue, WA 98004 RE: L04 - 036 SC - 3 Retail Building Dear Mr. Scofield, If you have any questions please call me at (206) 431 -3670. Sincerely Nora Gierlo Planning Supervisor Enclosures L04 -082 Appeal filed by Jo -Ann Stores Inc. L04 -083 Appeal filed by ING Clarion Partners Q:\.SC3VYoticeofAppeal- Renner.DOC City of Tukwila Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director I am writing to notify you that the design review application for the SC -3 Retail Building at 17401 Southcenter Boulevard has been appealed. You are a party of record to this application. The appeal will be in the form of a closed record hearing before the Tukwila City Council, tentatively scheduled for February 7 2005. You will receive a notice of hearing closer to the hearing date. Steven M. Mullet, Mayor 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 -431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 December 15, 2004 Dana Moore Ethan Allen 17333 Southcenter Py. Tukwila, WA 98188 RE: L04 -036 SC -3 Retail Building Dear Ms. Moore, If you have any questions please call me at (206) 431 -3670. Sincerel Nora Gierloff Planning Supervisor Enclosures L04 -082 Appeal filed by Jo -Ann Stores Inc. L04 - 083 Appeal filed by ING Clarion Partners Q:\SCANoticeofAppeal-Moore.DOC oticeofAppeal- Moore.DOC City of Tukwila Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director I am writing to notify you that the design review application for the SC -3 Retail Building at 17401 Southcenter Boulevard has been appealed. You are a party of record to this application. The appeal will be in the form of a closed record hearing before the Tukwila City Council, tentatively scheduled for February 7 2005. You will receive a notice of hearing closer to the hearing date. Steven M. Mullet, Mayor 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 Dept. Of Community Development City of Tukwila AFFIDAVIT OF DISTRIBUTION I, O.i/L £{O d :: HEREBY DECLARE THAT: Notice of Public Hearing . . Determination of Non - Significance Project. Name: S - 3 Notice of Public Meeting Project Number: L--0 Mitigated Determination of Non - Significance Mailer's Signature: C Board of Adjustment Agenda Pkt J\j C 7 (' &'L.(j7 Determination of Significance & Scoping Notice Board of Appeals•Agenda Pkt Notice of Action Planning Commission Agenda Pkt Official Notice Short Subdivision Agenda Notice of Application Shoreline Mgmt Permit Notice of Application for Shoreline Mgmt Permit __ FAX To Seattle Times Classifieds Mail: Gail Muller Classifieds PO Box 70 - Seattle WA 98111 • Other ����n ��`"�J' 't • SC- --3 Jul-6A1 a IPF(Ct'Z Y "" - U W04 P:GINAWYNETTA/FORMS /AFFIDAVIT -MAIL 08/29/003:31 PM Was mailed to each of the addresses listed on this (,Q day ofd- in the year 20Dti . Project. Name: S - 3 r a ∎ ,& ', /4 Project Number: L--0 ) D 3 ( Mailer's Signature: C Person requesting mailing: J\j C 7 (' &'L.(j7 P:GINAWYNETTA/FORMS /AFFIDAVIT -MAIL 08/29/003:31 PM Was mailed to each of the addresses listed on this (,Q day ofd- in the year 20Dti Project Name: Mailer's Signature: Dept. Of Community Development City of Tukwila AFFIDAVIT OF DISTRIBUTION S viL.44A4 c HEREBY DECLARE THAT: Notice of Public Hearing Notice of Public Meeting Board of Adjustment Agenda Pkt Board of Appeals Agenda Pkt Planning Commission Agenda Pkt Short Subdivision Agenda Shoreline Mgmt Permit FAX To Seattle Times Classifieds Mail: Gail Muller Classifieds PO Box 70 - Seattle WA 98111 Determination of Non - Significance Mitigated Determination of Non - Significance Determination of Significance & Scoping Notice of Action Official Notice Notice of Application Notice of Application for Shoreline M gm Permit Other Was mailed to each of the addresses listed on this year 201714 Person requesting mailing: 61,64 -NC,,e/ Project Number: L4 — ( P:GINAWYNETTA/FORMS /AFFIDAVIT -MAIL 08/29/003:31 PM 4 r-A eA R,,, ( 626 day of 7n th ®09L5 Jaw] Brad Decker DDCI 117 East Louisa St., #230 Seattle, WA 98102 Steve Brunette ING Real Estate 1001 Fourth Ave., Suite 3040 Seattle, WA 98154 Brad Renner Ethan Allen Service Center 20120 - 72 " Ave. So. Kent, WA 98032 ®091$ aoj ajeidwal esti Catherine Drews Foster Pepper & Shefelman 1111- 3 Ave., Suite 3400 Seattle, WA 98101 Robert Icsman Jo-Ann Stores, Inc. 5555 Darrow Rd. Hudson, OH 44236 Bob Scofield 4212 Hunts Point Road Bellevue, WA 98004 s�age� ssaippy ®AU3y Melody McCutcheon Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson 500 Galland Bldg. 1221 2 " Ave. Seattle, WA 98101 -2925 Chuck Wiegman JSH Properties 14900 Interurban Ave. So., Suite 210 Tukwila, WA 98168 -4654 Dana Moore Ethan Allen 17333 Southcenter Pkwy. Tukwila, WA 98188 wls}aags paq wows HCMP HILLIS CLARK MARTIN & PETERSON law office,' Board of Architectural Review c/o Ms. Nora Gierloff Planner Supervisor City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 -2544 Tr MERITAS Re: Development at 17401 Southcenter Parkway, File No. L04 -036 Dear Ms. Gierloff and Board of Architectural Review: We represent ING Clarion Partners, the owners of property immediately adjacent to the above - referenced proposal. Their property is developed with existing retail uses. At prior Board meetings, they submitted written and oral comments expressing significant concerns with the proposal. The proposal would interfere with parking and access for their site, significantly impair visibility of their retail structures, and it fails to meet the City's design criteria that the proposal adequately address the relationship of the structure and site to the adjoining area. In past communications with the Board, ING has suggested that an alternative location for the building be created and reviewed to address the problems with this proposal. Despite our good faith efforts, an alternative layout that utilizes different properties has not been attainable. However, this does not mean the Board should stop consideration of other alternatives and just approve the development as currently proposed. The staff reports and the report of the City's independent consultant all document the many problems with the current site plan. In particular, the report of the independent consultant, prepared by Freedman Tung & Bottomley (Attachment F to August 19, 2004 staff report), stated that the current site plan had a poor relationship with existing buildings and did not contribute to the creation of street frontage. The independent consultant developed an alternative for reconfiguring the building entirely within the applicant's property, and that alternative is vastly superior. LAW FIRMS WORLDWIDE November 18, 2004 Hand Delivered 500 Galland Building 1221 Second Avenue Seattle, Washington 98101 -2925 phone 206.623.1745 fax 206.623.7789 www.hcmp.com A PROFESSIONAL SERVICE CORPORATION Ms. Nora Gierloff November 18, 2004 Page 2 of 2 MBM:kat E -Mail: MBM @hcmp.com cc: Steve Brunette Chris Roscoe Chuck Weigman #289269 18438 -002 677901!.doc We believe the Board has given inadequate consideration to the alternative proposed by the City's independent consultant, and we request further consideration of this alternative. It appears that the Board did not consider this alternative because the applicant refused to cooperate and provide any drawings of it. The applicant has been willing to make only some minor changes to the proposal to try to alleviate a few of the worst conditions it would create. However, it is still not a proposal that is consistent with City design review criteria. We urge you to consider further the alternative proposed by the independent consultant and require the applicant to provide drawings of that proposal so that they can be properly and fully evaluated. Thank you for consideration of our comments. Very truly yours, ( 3hkecaaA-4 Melody B. McCutcheon HCMP c 9/27/04 City of Tukwila Department of Community Development Moira Bradshaw, AICP 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 Brad Decker 117 East Louisa Street #230 Seattle, WA 98102 RE: SC -3 Retail Building, File Number L04 -036 Response to correction: 1) a) The existing parapets need to be shown on,the south and north and west elevation plan, as they will be visible. RESPONSE: Widened the parapets o 5 feet (where visible) and added to the north and south elevations. b) The back and sides of the parapets need to be treated in a similar manner as the front and as wide as the columns that visually support them from the side. RESPONSE: Added parapet to the north and south sides of the western elevations, south elevations and north elevation. This creates a consistent parapet elevation on the front, rear and sides. 2) Add new parapets along the west facade. RESPONSE: Added parapet to the north and south sides of the western elevations. 3) Build up the existing columns one foot on the sides and rear similar to the front and add two columns along the inside edge of the two outside sections. RESPONSE: Added base columns on the south elevation, south side of western elevation and above trellis on the north side of the western elevation and north elevation. 4) Continue the same crown cornice treatment at the tops of all the columns. RESPONSE: Added same crown cornice treatment at the tops of all columns on all elevations. This creates a consistent crown cornice treatment on all elevation. 5) The tile accent at the base of the "columns" should be the same color family as the blue / green chosen for the project accent. RESPONSE: We will provide a new slate / tile in the blue /green color family by Wednesday 9/22/04. REC EIvEb (SEp 2 7 2004 REV €L p mEN 6) An exit door needs to be added to the southern most tenant space. RESPONSE: Added exit door on the south elevation. 7) Add a window on the south elevation in the western half of the facade. RESPONSE: Added window on the south elevation in the western half. 8) Utilize the tile around entire lower portion of building facade and add a cap or sill where the window meets the wall. RESPONSE: Added the tile around entire lower columns on all elevations. E- mail September 23 2004 removes the request for balance of tile on lower portion of building and window sills. 9) Extend/consolidate metal canopies across back two portions of building — fitting between columns. RESPONSE: Added two metal canopies between the columns on the north and south sides below the peaks on the western elevation. 10) A) Eliminate the wall packs from the rear and continue the wall fixture from the front around to rear at "column" locations. RESPONSE: Removed all wall packs from the building and added wall spots on all columns all around building. B) Add ground mounted lights in the landscape beds in rear and side to illuminate walkways and where appropriate. RESPONSE: Added 3 foot ground mounted lights on the south side plaza area. The side walks on the north, east and west elevations shall be illuminated by columns wall lights mounted on the building. 11) Provide two cross sections through the site from east to west — these will be required for your Public Works permits as well. We should have them now so that we are aware of any issues with adjacent improvements. See site plan for locations. RESPONSE: Provided cross section as requested on the southeast side from Southcenter Parkway to building. Waiting for the 2nd east — west location, 12) Create a detail for the pedestrian area on the south side; incorporate bench and trash receptacle and provide the specifications. RESPONSE: Added plaza area on the southern portion; incorporated benches and trash receptacles. (See attached benches and trash receptacles to match neighboring center) 13) Provide the specifications and cut sheets for the railings and bike rack. RESPONSE: Provided specific cut sheets of railing and bike rack 14) Add a landscape area on the west side of the building that contains trees that mirror the plantings on the west side of the common driveway. RESPONSE: Added two landscaping areas on west side to match the plantings on the west side of easement drive. 15) Please provide the building's reveal width and depth RESPONSE: Added detail of proposed reveal and increased the reveal from %2" to 2 14" on the face of the concrete. (See detail on drawings) 16) Please provide the window mullion color that matches the trellis color RESPONSE: Our design team believes that the accent color on the trellis, if applied to the window mullions, would overwhelm concept. We are suggesting a white powdered color window mullion. (We will provide a sample) 17) Add a trellis to the right of the northernmost exit door RESPONSE: Moved exit door to the north elevation and added trellis over exit door. 18) Move the loading zones so that a corner landscape element can be added in the northwest corner of the building. This will require the elimination of the parallel stalls and maybe the movement of that rear northernmost exit door. RESPONSE: Moved loading zone south to create a landscaping corner element on the northwest corner. Added pole light on the northwest corner to light up area as requested by Ethan Allen. Moved exit door to the north elevation and kept parking stall, because it fits and every parking stall is important. 19) A) We would prefer to see the rear door painted to match the color of the building. RESPONSE: Added note that all north and west exit door shall be painted body color. B) For the plaza treatment - please provide a detail that shows the pavement patterns proposed and any other design element of note. RESPONSE: Added detail to plot plan. 20) Provide sign detail to match the building RESPONSE: Will provide details by Wednesday 9/22/04. B) Revise sign heath or set back per code: RESPONSE: Added note that all north and west exit door shall be painted body color. 21) Make the door look like doors and the windows look like windows RESPONSE: We propose to have powder white window mullions and red doors to match the red accent color on the building. (See attached picture) We will provide samples. 22) Provide sample of window mullion and glass for the west elevation south side. RESPONSE: See attached glass sample and we will provide window mullion. This is the complete list of corrections that we have been requested to provide additional details. If there are any more issues, please let us know as soon as possible. Thank you for your time and effort. Sincerely Brad Decker Moira Bradshaw - RE: Dear Mr. Renner: Page 1 V From: "Brad Decker" <brad @seattleforrent.net> To: "'Moira Bradshaw "' <mbradshaw @ci.tukwila.wa.us> Date: 8/3/04 2:53PM Subject: RE: Dear Mr. Renner: Moira, We are sending our the attached letter certified mail to the Owners of the shopping center behind us. Attached is your copy. Thank you Brad Decker Original Message From: Moira Bradshaw [mailto :mbradshaw @ci.tukwila.wa.us] Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 2004 2:11 PM To: bcr @seattle- ethanallen.com Cc: brad @seattleforrent.net Subject: Dear Mr. Renner: Dear Mr. Renner: I've received a copy of your comment letter on the proposal to demolish Winners and build a retail building at the above address. I appreciate the time and attention you took going over the site's details. Your letter will be included with the staff report to the Tukwila Board of Architectural Review. The Board must decide whether the proposed project meets the design review guidelines established by the City for new commercial buildings. The criteria for the decision are attached. I have made note of your concems about 1. the lighting of the parking lot on the north and northeast side of the site; 2. the concern for pedestrians crossing the common access easement, stop sign, turning movements and signalization; - I've forwarded your letter to Transportation Planning for their input; 3. the condition and maintenance of the landscaping of the north parking area; 4. the location of parking. You will be notified when the application has been scheduled for a public hearing. Thank you again for you time and comments. If you have any questions prior to the meeting, please call me at 206 431 -3651. Sincerely, Moira Bradshaw, AICP Senior Planner, Department of Community Development City of Tukwila (206) 431-3651 (206) 431 -3665 FAX I Moira Bradshaw - Letter to Owners - re -c ction.doc Page 1 8/03/04 Ing Real Estate Investment Management Attention Stephen P. Latimer, Managing Director 1001 Fourth Avenue, Suite 3040 Seattle, WA 98154 Brad Decker 117 East Louisa Street #230 Seattle, WA 98102 RE: Winners development at 17401 Southcenter Parkway Dear Stephen, The City of Tukwila has requested several things in our application that affects your property. 1) The City of Tukwila is requesting that we open the front parking lot driveway. 2) The City of Tukwila would like to see a pedestrian walk way from the North parking stall to the building and from the South building to JoAnn's. We would like an opportunity to discuss the possibility of meeting their requests. Please contact me at 206 -545 -4964. Sincerely Brad Decker CC: Moira Bradshaw, City of Tukwila SENT BY: DDCI; 2065454952; PHONE (206) 545 -4964 FAX (206) 545 -4952 TRANSMITTAL DATE: 7/26/2004 TO: Moira Bradshaw FROM: Brad Decker RE: 17401 Southcenter Parkway NOTE: Moira , Please see the attached response to the design review letter. I look forward to meeting with you tomorrow at your office. If you have any question please call me at 206 -545 -4964. Brad Decker JUL -26 -04 2:45PM; tmovz DECKER DEVELOPMENT & CONSTRUCTION, INC. 117 EAST LOUISA ST. #230 SEATTLE, WA 98102 Number of Pages: (Including this Transmittal) If you do not receive all the pages of this fax, please call 206 -545 -4964 PAGE 1 SENT BY: DDCI; 2065454952; JUL -26 -04 2:45PM; PAGE 2 City of Tukwila Moira Carr Bradshaw 6300 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 RESPONSE TO TIIE DESIGN REVIEW CRITERIA RE: SC 3 Retail Center at 17401 Southcenter Parkway L04 -036, E04 -012 Dear Moira, We have been working diligently on this project since December 2003, including two pre application hearings. We redesigned the whole project reducing the size of the building by 25 %. After getting your correction notice on July l' 2004, we redesigned the building again for a 3' time. We seek your help to stay on a reasonable time line to process the design review portion of this permit. During the last 6 months we have been working with national retailers. These national retailers have building all over the country and they are very particular about there buildings. We modified the building 6 times to meet there needs. After 6 month of working with the retailers we have pre leased the entire building. On Friday 7/16/04, we received your e-mail and our whole design team was taken back. We believed that we had designed a very attractive high quality building. The retailers also believe that this is a very attractive and high quality building and wish to place there business there. These-retailers know that if there building is not effectively and functionally designed to attract there customers, there business will not succeed, therefore it is a high priority that the building is very functional. These retailers know that we are not designing a "walk about" center, but rather a drive up center with currently 6 Tenants. Time is of the essence for us. While there is sufficient time necessary to make the August 26 2004 Design review meeting, if we have to keep modifying the building in order to get a final plan, we will miss the meeting. The building has been committed to the Tenants. We seek you assistant to meet the ambiguous design review process. During your vacation we requested a meeting with Nora in order to clarify the remaining design issues. While Nora and Carol meet with us on Wednesday July 21 ", 2004 at 3:30, in order to get the specific building design, they we reluctant to give us specific detail for all items, since this is your project and they do not know what your planning. We have altered the building design a 4 time using Nora's suggestions to move the garbage and recycle together, to create a more solid base by adding comer and column design elements. I will bring the revised plans tomorrow for our meeting at 3:30 pm. Brad Decker ate your assistance in designing a high quality retail center. SENT BY: DDCI; 2065454952; Moira, JUL -26 -04 2:45PM; We have started the process in creating our interpretation of the review. 1. RELATIONSHIP OF STRUCTURE TO SITE a. The site should bc planned to accomplish a desirable transition with streetscape and to provide for adequate landscaping and pedestrian movement. RESPONSE: The l' designs had the building 15 feet off Southcenter Parkway. This design did not provide a very desirable transition with the streetscape, so on the 2nd design we pulled the building back creating a inviting transition to the streetscape. At Moira's request, we added a handicap accessible walkway from Southccntcr Parkway to building and around the south side where the pedestrians can connect to Joann's walkway. b. Parking and service areas should be located, designed and screened to moderate the visual impact of large paved areas. RESPONSE: The parking loading zones were significantly reduced from the original submittal. This was accomplished by reducing the building size from 27,000 sq. ft to 20,400 sq. ft. The design allowed parking on 3 sides of the building, therefore reducing the large paved areas. Due to the building size a service area is not required. c. The height and scale of each building should be considered in relation to the site. RESPONSE: The height and scale have been specifically design to be compatible with the surrounding retail centers. The maximum height of 33 feet and a low of 21 feet with a mixe of peaks and arches. 2 RELATIONSHIP OF STRUCTURE AND SITE TO ADJOINING AREA. a. Harmony on texture, lines and masses is encouraged. RESPONSE: All 4 designs have taken the surrounding retail centers elements into consideration. There are arches from both the retail center behind us and across the street. The Peak in the Joann's portion was added to create a center piece. The Stepped down portion was added create solid portion which was taken from across the street center. The design uses many of the same textures (stucco and tile) as the other retail center's in the area. b. Appropriate landscape transition to adjoining properties should be provided. RESPONSE: The proposed plan provides landscaping transition on the East and south sides and provides landscaping above code requirements. c. Public buildings and structures should bc consistent with the established neighborhood character. RESPONSE: All 4 designs have taken the surrounding public buildings and structures into consideration in the design and materials. The arch, peaks and flat portions from the surrounding public buildings are incorporated into the design to create a consistent neighborhood and character. The design also uses many of the same textures such as stucco and tile. which are prevalent in many of the neighboring public buildings. PAGE 3/4 SENT BY: DDCI; 2065454952; d. Compatibility of vehicular pedestrian circulation patterns and loading facilities in terms of safety, efficiency and convenience should be encouraged. RESPONSE: The site has access easements on the north, and west sides to provide vehicular circulation for the new center and the existing Jo -Ann's center. The Owners of this building have requested to have the east driveway connect with Jo -Ann's center east driveway, but the Owners of the Jo -Ann's center have not responded. The revised plans provide separate wallcing path from Southcenter Parkway to the building and around the south side to the Jo - Ann's center creating a safe walking area. The loading spaces are conveniently located on the corner to provide easy access and egress for the trucks. e. Compatibility of on -site vehicular circulation with street circulation should be encouraged. RESPONSE: The site accesses Southcenter Parkway thru an established driveway access point at the northend of the property. The driveway is connected to the access easement on the south side to provide easy access to Southcenter Parkway or the Jo -Ann's center. To be continued 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. Landscape treatment should enhance architectural features, strengthen vistas and important axis, and provide shade. 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 JUL -26 -04 2:46PM; PAGE 4/4 Brad Decker From: Moira Bradshaw (mbradshaw @ci.tukwila.wa.us] Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2004 3:21 PM To: brad @seattleforrent.net Subject: SC Retail - 17401 Southcenter PY BARSTAFF.doc (30 KB) Brad - I received your affidavit for the board - thank you. I've attached the beginnings a copy of our staff report format with the Design Review Guidelines. I've made notes where I have concerns. I haven't had time to go over the planting in detail so I'll have to get back to you later on that. I'd like to reemphasize that design review is not about just meeting the code, that is the point of beginning. There is an expectation that applicants will go beyond and ensure that the buildings that are built are of a high quality and that the environment that is created is comfortable and enticing for people as they walk and drive through it. Overall I have concerns about the proposals lack of and small size of pedestrian walkways. There are transitions between parking area and adjacent property and building walkways that don't appear to have been thought through IE. how will the grades meet and the edge be treated. Landscape architects are often skilled in site planning and some of these issues and you may want to make it more of a team effort rather than have each of your consultants deal with the site on a sequential basis. The building itself does not have much design nor does it take advantage of the site. I will be back in the office on the 27 of July - I'll look forward to meeting with you then. Sincerely, Moira Bradshaw, AICP Senior Planner, Department of Community Development City of Tukwila (206) 431 -3651 (206) 431 -3665 FAX - 1 HEARING DATE: NOTIFICATION: FILE NUMBER: APPLICANT: OWNERS: REQUESTS: ASSOCIATED PERMITS: LOCATION: COMPREHENSIVE PLANDESIGNATION: ZONE DESIGNATION: SEPA DETERMINATION: STAFF: C:\Mydocumen is ... BARSTAFF STAFF REPORT TO THE BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW PREPARED On 14 July 14, 2004 Notice of Application was mailed to surrounding properties and posted on the site. Notice of Hearing was posted and mailed to surrounding properties and sent to the Seattle Times for publication on XXXX. L04 -036 Brad Decker Brad Decker Approval of design for an approximate 20,200 square foot one story retail building. Demolition of the 9,300 square foot Winners restaurant 17401 Southcenter Parkway Tukwila Urban Center Tukwila Urban Center Moira Carr Bradshaw Staff Report to the L98 -0060 Board of Architectural Review Carlyle, Inc. - 6801 S. 180th Street ATTACHMENTS: to Design Review application A. B. Cover Sheet C. D. Building Elevations E. F. Applicant's responses G. 2 Staff Report to the L98 -0060 Board of Architectural Review Carlyle, Inc. - 6801 S. 180th Street VICINITY /SITE INFORMATION Project Description FINDINGS Surrounding Land Uses The site is surrounded by one story retail and commercial services such as restaurants. DESIGN REVIEW CRITERIA 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; Brad — this is where I would expect to see pedestrian circulation around the bldg and back to the Joann's behind your bldg. Landscaping should also be used to soften the rear and sides. I've gone out to measure other developments and most of them have at a minimum of 10 feet as a front entry walk. The door openings swing out to 3 feet. 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. 3 Staff Report to the ' F L98 -0060 Board of Architectural Review Carlyle, Inc. - 6801 S. 180th Street 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 the established neighborhood character; d. Compatibility of vehicular pedestrian circulation patterns and loading facilities in terms of safety, efficiency and convenience should be encouraged; Again you see that pedestrian circulation is an important component of the site's design. Also that the recycling should be colated with the trash area. The fact that your parking lot buts up against but doesn't connect with the adjacent parking lot in front is ackward. Have you discussed connecting the two sites at this point? The transition between these two properties at this point is also unclear — currently at this physical location there is a walkway e. Compatibility of on -site vehicular circulation with street circulation should be encouraged. The parking entrances should line up with adjacent properties where possible. 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; Your site sits above the street and is on a visual axis as one heads south on Southcenter PY. Because of that the northeast corner of the bldg should be emphasized and designed as a focal point. b. Grades of walks, parking spaces, terraces and other paved areas should promote safety and provide an inviting and stable appearance; Many of the adjacent retailers have special paving along building fronts and at entrances in order to provide an inviting appearance — you should do the same. c. Landscape treatment should enhance architectural features, strengthen vistas and important axis, and provide shade; See comment above d. In locations where plants will be susceptible to injury by pedestrian or motor traffic, mitigating steps should be taken; The way the north parking area is laid out causes customers to cross through the landscaping — hence some solutions need to be provided. e. Where building sites limit planting, the placement of trees or shrubs in paved areas is encouraged; Screening of service yards, and other places that tend to be unsightly, should be accomplished by use of walls, fencing, planting or a combination; R. 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. 4. Building Design. a. Architectural style is not restricted, evaluation of a project should be 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; 4 . Staff Report to the L98 -0060 Board of Architectural Review Carlyle, Inc. - 6801 S. 180th Street 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; Currently, the parapets are relatively small in scale and should be larger. 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; • Exterior lighting should be part of the architectural concept. Fixtures, standards, and all exposed accessories should be harmonious with building design; Please present luminaire cut sheets and building elevations that show the nightime patterns. 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. This is where I've commented before. The building currently has minimal detail relying on the canopy and the parapets. The form itself is also not interesting. 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; Many building owners provide seating and trash receptacles and bike racks that are compatible with their overall design. b. Lighting in connection with miscellaneous structures and street furniture should meet the guidelines applicable to site, landscape and buildings. CONCLUSIONS The Board of Architectural Review, pursuant to Tukwila Municipal Code (TMC) Section 18.108.040, hereby makes the following findings and conclusions under the city's Design Review Criteria (TMC 18.60.050). (1) Relationship of Structure to Site. (2) Relationship of Structure and Site to Adjoining Area. (3) Landscaping and Site Treatment. (4) Building Design. (5) Miscellaneous Structures and Street Furniture. 5 L98 -0060 , Staff Report to the Board of Architectural Review Carlyle, Inc. - 6801 S. 180th Street RECOMMENDATIONS 6 Moira Bradshaw - RE: SC3 Retail Page 1 From: "Brad Decker" <brad @seattleforrent.net> To: "'Moira Bradshaw "' < mbradshaw @ci.tukwila.wa.us> Date: 7/9/04 2:07PM Subject: RE: SC3 Retail Moira, We will modify the building to meet the codes as specified. 1 will get a response back to you next week and the revised plans will follow. Thank you Brad Original Message From: Moira Bradshaw [mailto :mbradshaw @ci.tukwila.wa.us] Sent: Thursday, July 08, 2004 4:55 PM To: brad @seattleforrent.net Cc: Jill Mosqueda Subject: SC3 Retail Brad - Attached are the Public Works comments. I understand that we are still waiting for the City's transportation engineer to review Transpo's report. I've also had a chance to review the issues we discussed yesterday and the only way to not meet them is to apply for a variance. Variances are typically difficult to justify. It would appear that you could meet the standards if you redesigned the project. The application for a variance are at the City's web site or you may look in the Zoning Code under 18.72. My suggestion is that you modify the site plan to allow sufficient space for the pedestrian path, recycling collocated with the dumpster, and the minimum required grade for parking. There may have been a misunderstanding about the orientation of the bldg and it's location. Neither Minnie nor Nora expressed any objections to the location of the bldg adjacent to the front. So modifying your plan is an option. I will be back in the office on Tuesday if you would like to go over your options. Regards, Moira Bradshaw, AICP Senior Planner, Department of Community Development City of Tukwila (206) 431 -3651 (206) 431 -3665 FAX CITY OF TUKWILA PUBLIC WORKS PROIECT REVIEW COMMENTS www.ci.tukwila.wa.us Development Guidelines and Design and Construction Standards Project Name: SC -3 Retail 17401 Southcenter Parkway File #: L04 -036 Design Review E04 -012, PRE04 -018, PRE04 -025 Review #: 1 Date: 06.28.04 Reviewer: L. Jill Mosqueda, P.E. The City Of Tukwila Public Works Department (PW) has the following comments regarding your application for the above permit. Please contact me at 206.431.2449, if you have any questions. 1. Design Review Comments a) General • This application is complete. • Explain the purpose of the rock trench shown on sheet 1 of 4. b) Storm Drainage Sheet 3 of 4 • The angles at the new east and west connections for the new North Canyon overflow are too acute to accommodate high flows. Provide the design calculations for the North Canyon overflow pipe. • Provide a cross section for the 36" pipe that runs from CB #1 to CB #2. The cross section must show the expected foundation, including piles if part of the design, the pipe and bedding, curbs, pavement, etc. The cross section should be as wide at the surface as a trench would need to be for maintenance operations. • Some of the roof downspout drains are shown without a catch basin or clean - out at angles in the lines. The City requires a catch basin or clean -out. Projects /PRE04 -018 SC -3/L04 -036 DR #1 1 • Explain what the two Stormceptors are picking up. How is the surface water going to get into the Stormceptors? c) Water • The fire line needs a Detector Double Check Valve. • The water supply needs a reduced pressure principle assembly and freeze protection located on the building side of the water meter. d) Landscape • The landscape plans must match the proposed site improvement plans. The plans should show the rock trench, Stormceptors, berm and other elements at and near the landscaping. • The water meter locations need to match. 2. FYI Comments a) Storm Drainage ■ Pipe material must be either concrete or HDPE. • The existing drainage easement needs to be released and a new one put in its place. The City will work on these two items as soon as the design for the North Canyon overflow is determined. • Consider placing the North Canyon overflow in the common access easement to the north of this parcel. ■ The building permit plans should include a cross section at the southeast side of the building. The cross section should show the building, foundation, walkway, curbs, new pavement and existing pavement. The cross section should show the method proposed to transition from old to new. b) Survey sheet 1 of 1 shows an oil /water separator. This is a grease interceptor. Projects /PRE04 -018 SC -3/L04 -036 DR #1 2 July 1, 2004 Brad Decker 117 Louisa St., #230 Seattle, WA 98102 Dear Mr. Decker: City of Tukwila Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director Subject: SC Retail 17401 Southcenter PY L04 -036 E04 -012 NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION Steven M. Mullet, Mayor Your application for SC Retail located at 17401 Southcenter PY has been found to be complete on 28 June 2004 for the purposes of meeting state mandated time requirements. The next step is for you to install the notice board on the site within 14 days of the date of this letter. You received information on how to install the sign with your application packet. If you need another set of those instructions, please call me. Once you have notified me that the notice board has been installed I will post it with a laminated copy of the Notice of Application and the comment period will start. After installing the sign, you need to return the signed Affidavit of Posting to our office. This determination of complete application does not preclude the ability of the City to require that you submit additional plans or information, if in our estimation such information is necessary to ensure the project meets the substantive requirements of the City or to complete the review process. I have begun the substantive review of your proposal and have the following comments. Because I have not received responses from the Public Works and Police Departments, this list of issues is not comprehensive. You may wish to wait until you have received comments from the other departments before submitting any revised plans. The City finds that additional review time is necessary to review your permit application because the additional information requested by this letter is needed to accurately describe your project. These applications will expire if we do not receive the additional information within ninety days of the date of this letter unless an extension is granted pursuant to Section 18.105.070(E). The following corrections and additions must be made to your site plan: Page 1 of 5 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 -431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 • Loading Spaces must be a minimum of 10 feet by 30 feet per Tukwila Municipal Code (TMC) 18.56.050; • Two(2) Permanent Bicycle parking spots must be shown and provided within 50 feet of the front entrances per TMC 18.56.130; • Create a recycling area that is a minimum of 238 square feet. It should be located close to the trash area per TMC 18.52.080; • The site plan needs to be cleaned up so that the former curb lines are not visible (currently curb lines are shown that end in the middle of sidewalks/landscaping /drives — please verify and accurately show curbs.) • There must be a 3 foot sidewalk from the rear stalls to the front entrances to provide pedestrian access per TMC 18.56.050(5)(d) • Parking and loading spaces may not be located so that they interfere with opening radius of the exit doors. In addition, there is a pedestrian ramp in the front of Jo Ann's. It would be appropriate to locate your rear access area so that it lines up with that pedestrian entrance. A similar ramp will be required in front of your building to provide handicap access to Southcenter PY. • One additional handicap stall is required per the WA State building code. Each handicap stall must have a vertically mounted sign. Because of this signage requirement the car overhang designed into your parking stalls impinges on the 3 foot (effectively) sidewalk and creates problems, especially because the handicap stalls are in front of a tenant's door. Page 2 of 5 Page 3 of 5 • Where appropriate swap the location of landscaping and pedestrian walkways so that the ped paths are adjacent to the parking stalls rather than the driveways. • The parking stalls that exist on the south side that will become the south edge of your building pad currently drain through a curb opening onto your property. How will the water be handled? (See picture below.) • Two cross sections through the front parking lot and building going east to west that: • demonstrate that the parking area will not exceed 5% slope TMC 18.56.050(4) (It appears that the grades would range from 6% - 10 %,) • the HVAC will sit below the parapet walls and • that shows the transition between the adjacent parking and the new building. • A cross section along the length of the parking lot in front is also requested. • Please submit a materials board, luminaire cut sheets and the lighting plan. The Elevation Plan needs to be modified. The rear elevation is unrelieved and monotonous. You may modify the elevation or provide landscaping to provide more visual interest on this facade. The front facade also needs more modulation, the 250 feet of facade with just two minor offsets and no material change other than paint color does not provide sufficient depth. You may consider using a variety of materials or accentuating parts of the building wall and parapet feature. Clarify the material that will be used for gates on the dumpster. The Landscape Plan needs to include: • a planting plan for the north parking stalls; the landscaping there is insufficient and juniper and bark are not considered adequate. In addition, please include pathways through the plantings to allow for customers to pass through to the building on the south side, • the topographic elevations and the rock trench located in the front yard; • plantings for the 2 foot by 55 foot rectangular area in front of the northern portion of the building shown on the site plan but not the landscape plan; and • Minimum depths of 17 feet in the landscape area in front in order to accommodate your overhang. The landscape areas on the front south side of the building will have 65% slope. Most successful plantings should be on slopes that do not exceed a 2:1 slope. Please confirm how this area will be designed and planted. • There is inconsistency between the Landscape Plan and the Civil. Please clarify if the existing front steps will be retained? • Other modifications made to the site plan need to be reflected in a revised landscape plan. The Sign location does not meet the required setbacks. Please locate the sign foundation at least as far from a property line as it is tall and include the location on the site plan so that the foundation is incorporated into the landscape plan. Given the grade issues and the tight parking arrangements you may want to consider moving the building up to the public sidewalk and provide parking at either end. Locating the entries above the street with parking either in the rear or the side could work to your advantage. Because of the number of parking stalls allocated to the site, restaurants will not be allowed in any of the tenant spaces. I will be contacting you soon to discuss this project. If you wish to speak to me sooner, feel free to call me at (206) 431 -3670. Moira Carr Bradshaw Senior Planner Page 4 of 5 cc: Jill Mosqueda, Public Works Fire Prevention, Fire Department Q: \scretail\NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION.doc Page 5 of 5 Moira Bradshaw - scretail Page 1 1 From: Moira Bradshaw To: Brad @seattleforrent.net Date: 7/1/04 1:01 PM Subject: scretail Hi Brad - here are some of the pictures. I'II get them printed (eventually) What 1 see with your proposal is one building material on a fairly flat facade and using paint to try and provide some articulation. In addition, the northwest comer of the building could be emphasized rather than just treated as a corner. The corner could be an element and an entry. The road and the site's elevation provides some direct site lines to that point. Hope these visuals are of some help. Thank you. Regards, Moira Bradshaw, AICP Senior Planner, Department of Community Development City of Tukwila (206) 431 -3651 (206) 431 -3665 FAX December 17, 2003 Mr. Brad Decker Decker Development & Construction, Inc. 117 East Louisa Street # 230 Seattle, WA 98102 Subject: Request to relocate storm sewer located at 17401 Southcenter Parkway Dear Mr. Decker: I have reviewed your proposal and conditions to relocate the City of Tukwila storm sewer located on easement at 17401 Southcenter Parkway and determined that this system can be relocated as proposed. As you are aware, the function of this system is to convey runoff from this development and to serve as an overflow to the drainage to the west. Alterations to the location, if designed properly, will not affect the function of this drainage system. Formal approval for this storm system relocation will be handled through the City's permitting process. All costs for this relocation including permitting, engineering, easement relocation, and construction will be at your expense. If you have any questions or concerns on this issue, please call me at (206) 433 -0179. RDL:ad (P:aflceWecker Request) f j / v.)2 Ryan . Larson, P.E. Senior Engineer City of Tukwila Steven M. Mullet, Mayor Department of Public Works James E Morrow, P.E., Director REC I 0 'JUN 25 2004 co D morriTY 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206- 433 -0179 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 THE GRANTOR, PACIFIC NORTHWEST GROUP A, a joint, vesture consisting of California State Teachers' Retirement System, California Public. Employees' Retirement System and CROW - S - H #118, a Texas limited partnership, for good and valuable consideration; receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, hereby assigns all warranties received from its GRANTOR, JACK A. HENAROYA COMPANY, With respect to the following described real /0 estate, and bargains and sells and conveys to SHIDLER /WEST `J FINANCE PARTNERS III LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, a Delaware limited 0) partnership, as GRANTEE, warrantying only that it is seized of 0 such estate as it received from its GRANTOR, JACK A. BENAROYA Q0 COMPANY, a Washington corporation, and that the property hereby O conveyed is free from encumbrances done or suffered by the 0) GRANTOR, and also for quiet enjoyment against the GRANTOR, its co 8$ heirs and assigns, the following described real estate, situated „/1 in the County of Xing, State of Washington: 0) I PARCEL A: ING COUN EXCISETAXPAID . DEC 2 91989 E 0716 ' AFTER RECORDING MAIL TO. .,. FILED FOR RECORD AT REQUEST OF Ms. Elizabeth Fitzhugh 1ICO;I TITLE INSURANCE CO. ; Lane Powell Moss & Miller I003 vjESTERN AVE., SUITE 200 1420 Fifth Avenue, 41st Floor SEATTLE. WA 981Q4:w a Seattle, Washington 98101 SPECIAL WARRANTY DEED, ASSIGNMENT OF RIGHTS' ^' AND ASSIGNMENT OF LESSOR'S INTEREST IN LEASE °. THOSE PORTIONS OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 26, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W.M., IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, AND OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 3S, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W.M., IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 35; THENCE NORTH 87 °45'57' WEST ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAIO NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER A DISTANCE OF 481.05 FEET TO THE WEST MARGIN OF SOUTHCENTER PARKWAY AS ESTABLISHED IN KING COUNTY AUDITOR'S FILE NO. 6343848; THENCE SOUTH 11 °59'33" EAST ALONG SAID WEST MARGIN A DISTANCE OF 41.27 FEET; THENCE NORTH 87'45'57" WEST A DISTANCE OF 210.00 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE CONTINUING NORTH 87 ° 45'57" WEST A DISTANCE OF 19.11 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 42 °30'27" WEST A DISTANCE Of 537.51 FEET TO A POINT ON A LINE THAT 15 19.5 FEET SOUTHWESTERLY OF THE CENTERLINE OF A 19 FOOT WIDE RAILROAD EASEMENT ESTABLISHED BY INSTRUMENT RECORDED UNDER KING COUNTY AUDITOR'S FILE NO. 6643574; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG A LINE WHICH IS CONCENTRIC ANO PARALLEL WITH SAID CENTERLINE ALONG A CURVE TO THE RIGHT, THE CENTER OF WHICH BEARS NORTH 48°31'03" EAST HAVING A RADIUS OF 429.78 FEET AN ARC DISTANCE OF 433.55 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 57 °47'52 "; THENCE S9/12/29 RECD F RECFEE CASHSL 31.00 2.0 *433.00 Y.0r59 n RECEIVED , JUN 2 8 1004 ' COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT • 2 CONTINUING ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE NORTH 16 °18'55" EAST A DISTANCE OF 50.03 FEET TO THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 26; THENCE SOUTH 81'45'57" EAST ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE A DISTANCE OF 20.10 FEET TO THE CEN1ERLINE OF AN EXISTING RAILROAD EASEMENT ESTABLISHED BY INSTRUMENT RECORDED UNDER KING COUNTY RECEIVING NO. 7711090221; THENCE NORTH 16 °18'55" EAST ALONG SAID CENTERLINE A DISTANCE QF 164.16 FEET; THENCE ALONG A CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVING A RADIUS OF 661.74 FEET, AN ARC DISTANCE OF 184.73 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 15 °59'40 "; THENCE NORTH 00 ° 19'15" EAST ALONG SAID CENTERLINE A DISTANCE OF 528.93 FEET ; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID CENTERLINE ON A CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OF 410.28 FEET, AN ARC DISTANCE OF 239.28 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 33 °24'54 "; THENCE LEAVING SAID CENTERLINE OF RAILROAD EASEMENT, SOUTH 88 ° 51'25" EAST A DISTANCE OF 34.64 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 01•08'35" WEST A DISTANCEE OF 198.66 FEET; THENCE NORTH 86 ° 40'03" EAST A DISTANCE OF 274.13 FEET TO THE WEST MARGIN OF SOUTHCENTER PARKWAY AS ESTABLISHED IN KING COUNTY AUDITOR'S FILE NO. 6343868; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG SAID WEST MARGIN ON A CURVE TO THE LEFT, THE CENTER OF WHICH BEARS NORTH 85 °13'08" EAST HAVING A RADIUS OF 991.37 FEET, AN ARC DISTANCE OF 40.00 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 02 °18'42 "; THENCE LEAVING SAIO WEST MARGIN OF SOUTHCENTER PARKWAY SOUTH 85 ° 12'11" WEST A DISTANCE OF 182.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 11 ° 59'33" EAST A DISTANCE OF 261.67 FEET; THENCE SOUTH•88'25'36" EAST A DISTANCE OF 115.17 FEET; THENCE NORTH 11 ° 59'33" WEST A DISTANCE OF 91.7 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 88 °25'36" EAST A DISTANCE OF 66.85 FEET TO THE WEST MARGIN OF SOUTHCENTER PARKWAY AS ESTABLISHED IN KING COUNTY AUDITOR'S FILE NO. 6343867; THENCE SOUTH 11 °59'33" EAST ALONG SAID WEST MARGIN AS ESTABLISHED IN KING COUNTY AUDITOR'S FILE NO. 6343867 AND H0. 6343865 A DISTANCE OF 531.16 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID WEST MARGIN NORTH 87 °45'57" WEST A DISTANCE OF 210.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 11 ° 59'33" EAST A DISTANCE OF 235.54 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; TOGETHER WITH A NON - EXCLUSIVE EASEMENT FOR INGRESS AND EGRESS, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS; BEGINNING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 35, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, N.M., IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON; THENCE NORTH 87 ° 45'57" WEST ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER A DISTANCE OF 481.05 FEET TO THE WEST MARGIN OF SOUTHCENTER PARKWAY AS ESTABLISHED IN KING COUNTY AUDITOR'S FILE N0. 6343848; THENCE SOUTH 11 ° 59'33" EAST ALONG SAID WEST MARGIN A DISTANCE OF 15.48 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE CONTINUING SOUTH 11 ° 59'33" EAST ALONG SAIO WEST MARGIN A DISTANCE OF 51.58 FEET; THENCE NORTH 87 °45'57' WEST 256.63 FEET; THENCE NORTH 42 ° 30'27" EAST A DISTANCE OF 32.77 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 87 ° 45'57" EAST A DISTANCE OF 19.11 FEET; THENCE NORTH 11'59'33" WEST A DISTANCE OF 25.79 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 87 ° 45'57" EAST A DISTANCE OF 210.00 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL 8: EXCEPT THAT PORTION LYING WITHIN THE MAIN TRACT. THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 26, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W.M., IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE WEST LINE SAID SUBOIVISIOH DISTANT NORTH 0 °50'36" EAST 819.01 FEET FROM THE SOUTHWEST CORNER THEREOF; THENCE NORTH 85 °08'34" EAST 255.03 FEET TO THE CENTERLINE OF A RAILROAD EASEMENT DESCRIBED IN INSTRUMENT RECORDED UNDER AUDITOR'S FILE NO. 7711090221; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG SAID CENTERLINE 850 FEET MORE OR LESS TO THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SUBDIVISION; THENCE NORTH 8745'57" WEST ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE TO A POINT .ON A LINE WHICH IS PARALLEL WITH AND 39.00 FEET NORTHWESTERLY OF THE CENTERLINE OF A 19 FOOT RAILROAD EASEMENT ESTABLISHED •BY INSTRUMENT RECORDED UNDER AUDITOR'S FILE NO. 6643573; THENCE NORTH 16 ° 18'55" EAST ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE, 92.00 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE CENTERLINE OF A 40 -FOOT DRAINAGE EASEMENT GRANTED TO THE STATE OF WASHINGTON, BY INSTRUMENTS RECORDED UNDER AUDITOR'S FILE NOS. 623536 AND 6233537; THENCE NORTH 50 °38'32" WEST ALONG SAID DRAINAGE EASEMENT CENTERLINE 224.00 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE'WEST LINE OF SAJO SUBDIVISION; THENCE NORTH 0 °50'36" EAST 600 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. EXCEPT THAT PORTION THEREOF LYING WITHIN HIGHWAY 1-5. TOGETHER WITH all Grantor's right, title, and interest in that certain lease between Grantor, as Lessor, and The Boeing Company, as Lessee, dated March 14, 1978, including, but not limited to, all right, title, and interest of the Grantor in and to any funds of the lessee deposited with the Grantor as security deposits, prepaid rent, or otherwise pursuant to the provisions of the above- referenced lease, together with the right of further assignment, the lessor's obligations under which lease Grantee, by acceptance of this deed and assignment, assumes and agrees to perform. RESERVING under Grantor the following easements: i . Easement for ingress and egress described as follows: Beginning at the northeast corner of the northeast quarter of the northwest quarter of Section 35; Township 23 North, Range 4 East. W. M., in the City of Tukwila, County of King, State Of Washington; Thence N 87 W along the north line of said northeast quarter of the northwest quarter a distance of 481.05 feet to the west margin of Southcenter Parkway as established in King County Auditor's File No. 6343848; Thence S 11'59'33' E along said west margin a distance of 41.27 feet; Thence N 87'45'57' W a distance of 210.00 feet to the true point CI of beginning; 00 Thence continuing N 87'45'57' W a distance of 19.11 feet; C) Thence 5 42'30'27' W a distance of 26.38 feet: 07 Thence U.11 W a distance of 336.32 feet: 04 Thence N 02'14'03' E a distance of 108.30 feet; 04 Thence N 11'59'33' W a distance of 519.86 feet; •4 Thence N 88'51'25' W a distance of 152.31 feet to the C7 centerline of a railroad easement as described under King 00 County Receiving No. 7711090221; Thence northerly along said centerline on a curve to the right, the center of which bears S 89'05'19' E having a radius of 410.•28 feet, an arc distance of 24.01 feet through a central angle of 03'21'11 "; • Thence leaving said centerline of the railroad easement 5 88'51' 25" E a distance of 78.65 feet; Thence N 01'08'35' E a distance of 198.66 feet; Thence.S 88'51'25' E a distance of 20.00 feet; Thence 5 01'08'35' w a distance of 198:66 feet; Thence ,1 86'40'03' E a distance of 274.13 feet to the west margin of Southcenter Partway as established in King County Auditor's File No. 6343868; Thence southerly along said west margin on a curve to the left, the center of which bears N 85'13'08' E having a radius of 991.37 feet, an arc distance of 40.00 feet through a central angle of 02'18'42'; 4 .OD Thence leaving said west margin of Southcenter Parkway 5 85' 12'11" W a distanc 'of 182.00 'feet: Thence 5 11'59'33' E a distance of 502.04 feet: Thence 5 02'14'03' W a distance of 27.67 feet; Thence 5 87'45'57" E a distance of 189.56 feet to the west margin of Southcenter Parkway as established in King County Auditor's File No. 6343867; Thence S 11'59'33' E along said west margin a distance of 56.74 feet; Thence N 87'4S'57' W a distance of 203.50 feet; Thence S 02'14'03' W a distance of'25.63 feet; Thence S 11'59'33' E a distance of 320.70 feet to the true point of beginning. 1� 2. Easement for ingress and egress described as follows: Cad M Beginning at the northeast corner of the northeast quarter of the northwest quarter of Section 35, Township 23 North, Range 4 East, W. M., in the.City of Tukwila, County of King, State of Washington; Thence N 87'45'57" W along the north line of said northeast quarter of the northwest quarter a distance of 481.05 feet to the west margin of Southcenter Parkway as established in King County Auditor's File No. 6343848; Thence 5 11'59'33' E along said west margin a distance of 15.48 feet to the true point of beginning; Thence continuing 5 11'59'33' E along said west margin a distance of 51.48 feet; Thence N 87'45'57" W a distance of_256.63 feet; Thence N 42'30'27" E a distance of 32.77 feet; Thence 5 87'45'57" E a distance of 19.11 feet Thence N 11'59'33" W a distance of 25.79 feet; Thence 5 87'45'57" E a distance of 210.00 feet to the true point of beginning. 5 • 3 Easement for water line, 10 feet in width, having 5 feet of said width on each side of the _following described centerline: Beginning at the Southeast Corner of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Seeticn 26, Township 23 North, Range 4 East, W.Y., in King County, Washington; thence North 87'45'57" West along the south line of said Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter a distance of 481.05 feet to the west margin of Southcenter Parkway as established in King County Auditor's File No. 6343848; thence North 11'59'33" West along said west margin a distance of 419.58 feet; thence South 78 West a distance of 50.00 feet; thence North 11'59'33" West a distance of 160.00 feet; thence South 78'00'27" West' a distance of 190.00 feet; thence North 11'59'33" West a distance of 160.00 feet; thence North 01'29'24" East a distance of 154.36 feet to the true point of beginning; thence South 68'30'52" East a distance of 32.45 feet to the West line of Parcel 29 as described under Auditor's File No. 8007290264 and the terminus of this easement. 4. A sanitary sewer line easement, 10 feet in width, having 5 feet of said width on each side of the following described centerline: Beginning at the Southeast Corner of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section of Section 26, Township 23 North, Range 4 East, W.M., in King County, Washington; thence North 87'45'57" West along the South line said Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter a distance of `1153.'39 feet; thence North 16'18'55" East a distance of 194.99 feet; thence North 35'19'33" East a distance of 127.49 feet; thence North 04'34'07" East a distance of 279.94 feet; thence North 04'45'09" East a distance of 345.42 feet to a manhole and the tree point of beginning; thence South 45'19'08" East a distance of 158.87 feet; thence South 62'52'32" East a distance of 28.40 feet to the west line of Parcel 25 as described under Auditor's File No. .8007290254 and the terminus of this easement. 6 6 17 0 0 5. Easement for ingress and egress as delineated in Boundary Lot Line Adjustment recorded under Xing County Recording No. 891227 -0422 for the benefit of the following described parcels: RPCZ 262304902402 CAN:00000 SUP:0000000 S /I: - 000000 STATUS:ACTIVE PACIFIC NORTHWEST GRCUP A 529999 PAR 8 LESS POR LY WITHIN RR R/ L 5601 6TH AVE S 10/27/83 ESMT OF TUKWILA BNORY LN ADJ SEATTLE WA 98108 RSC AF 57911290697 DAF POR SE 1/4 OF SW 1/4 LY WO OF LOT:26 -23-04 OLOCK:9024 LAST LEGAL :OUTHCENTE3 PKWY b HIT OF A LN IS 12 2E6 tE COR SD SUED TH k 87 - 4S-57 W. AL6 5 LH •SO sUBo 481.05 FT TO W MGM SOUTHCENTER PKWY TH'N 11 -59 -33 W AL6 5D' W HOH,707.86 FT TO TPO8 TH S 82-18 -16 W 680.15.FT TO.V LN : SD SUBD'.i TERM SD LH r4 RPCI 262304906601 CAM:00 07 PACIFIC NORTHWEST GROUP A 52999 Q75401 6TH AVE S SEATTLE WA 98108 LOT:26 -23 -04 2LOCK :9066 227.28 FT THRU C/A 13 -08 -08 TH TH U 88 -51 -25 w 69 FT TM H 88 - 51 -25 Y 38 FT TH H 88 - 51 -25 W 161 FT TM N 88 - 51 -25 E 272.38 FT To W AL6 SD W MGN TO P08. 000 SUP ;0000000 5 /M: - 000000 STATUS :ACTIVE 9 POR SE 1/4 OF SW 1/4 - 8EG 5E 10/27/83 COR SO SUED TH H 87 -45 -57 V 481.05 FT TO W NON SOJTHCENT:R LAST LEGAL FT R TN CONTE H .58 ALG SD V GM 8 OH CURV IS 17 TO ROT RAD 991.37'FT ARC DIST N 01 -08 -35 P 74.95.FT TO TP08 TH N 01 E 12•FT TN S 01 -08 -35 V 12 FT TH S 01 -03 -35 W 168 FT MGM SOUTNCENTER PARKWAY TH AO 6a RPCI 26230491201)5 CAN:00000 sUP:0000000 s /M: - 000000 STATUS:ACTIVE PAC,IFIC NORTHWEST'GROU? A 529999 1 5601 6TH AVE S OF SW 1/4 10/27/88 COR SD SUBDTH4 87- 45 -57G SE SEATTLE WA w 99108 481.05 F7 70 ;/ MGN OF LOT: 26 -23-04 BLOCK :9120 LAST LEGAL W TO TN N 11 -59 -33 IS 31 , N 88-25 -36 v 66.85 FT TN S 11 - 59 -33 E 91.74 FT TN N 88 -25 -36 W 115.17 FT TH N 11 W 261.67 'FT TN' N 85 -12 -11 E 182 FT TO W MGR SOUTHCENTER PARKWAY TH SLY •AL6 . SD V MGN ON A CURVE TO LFT CENTER BEARING N 82 -26 E RAD 991.37 FT ARC DIST 84.78 FT THRU C/A 04-53-59. TH 5 11 -59 -33 E 105.15 FT TO TPOB T6W POR SE 1/4 OF SW 1/4 - BEG SE COR SD SU3D TH 11 37 -45 -57 W 481.05 FT TO V :1GN SOUTHCENTER PARKWAY N 11-59 -33 V 830.58 FT TH COHTG AL6 SD V N16N'ON A CURVE'TO RGT RAD 991.37 FT ARC DIST 124.78 FT THRU C/A clOF'07-12-41 TO TPOB TH. 5 86 - 40-03 Y 274.13 FT fill 01 - 08 -35 E 30.66 FT TH 5 88 -51-25 E 272.3E FT TO W MON QOSOUTHCENTER SOUTH TH SLY ALG SD W M58 ALG " A CURVE TO LFT CENTER OBEARING H 85 - 45 •26 °- RAD 991.37 FT ARC DIST 9.31 FT THRU C/A N 0-32-18 TO. TPOB C7) CO N 87 - 45 -57 Y 210 FT TH S 87 - 45 -57 E 210 FT TO V MGR • N 11 1 235.Sc FT TH E 194.27 FT TO TPOB - AKA PARCEL A OF CITY OFPTUKWILATBORYIL9 ADJS NO 9LA 8 -79 RECORDED 7908230752 6b RPCI 262304913409 CAH:00000 SUP:0000000 S /M: - 000000 STATUS:ACTIVE PACIFIC NORTMvEST GROUP A 529999 5601 6TH AVE S 10/27/89 S /4 5114/4 SECC26 -23 -04 SEATTLE WA 98108. 35 -23-04 - BEG NE COR 5D NE 1/4 LOT :26 -23 -04 BLOCK:9134 LAST LEGAL FT TO V / MGR SOUTHCENTER PARKVAO IS 13 TP08 TH S 11 - 59 -33 E 41.27 FT 7H RPCI 2 PACIFIC NORTHWEST 5601 6TH AVE S SEATTLE WA LOT:26 -23 -04 N 69 -4T E. 50.80 FT .TH N• 83 -54 -41 E 75.43 FT•TH RR ESMT TH ALG SO C/L ON E RAD 410.28•FT THRU C/A S 00 -19 -15 V.120.71 FT TH LESS E•11•FT• 0, 0 OD CI E3RPCI 262304913607 PACIFIC NORTHWEST GROUP 0D5601 6TH AVE 5 SEATTLE WA LOT:26 -23 -04 BLOCX CAN:00000 SUP :00010000 S /r.: - 000000 STATUS:ACTIVE. GROUP A 529999 POR tE 1/4 0F•SV 1/4 - BEG SE 10/27/88 COR SO SUED TH N 87 -45 -57 V 98108 1312.15 FT TO S7 CoR 5o SUOD TH H 00 E 819.01 BLOCK:9135 LAST LEGAL TP03 TH COHTG H E TO IS 17 FT TH N 80 -27 -22 E 49:54 F7 TH H 74-14 -21 E 50.45 FT 7H S 8 9 - 11 - 35 E 70.65 FT TO C/L OF CURVE TO LFT CENTER BEARING S 66-50 -05 22 -50-40 ARC DIS7 163.58 FT TH S 85-08 -34 W 255.03 FT; TO TPOS CAN:00000 SUP:0000000 S /M: - 000000 STATUS:ACTIVE A 529999 , POR S£ 1/4 OF SV 1/4 - BEG SE 10/27/88 COR SD SU30 TH N S7 -45 -57 98108 1312.15 FT TO SW CO3 SO SUED E T ?OB TH N 00-50 -36 E 519.01 FT :9134 LAST L_6AL TH N E5 -05-34 E 255.03 FT TO C/L I5 31 OF RR ESMT TH SLY ALG 5D C/L TO SLT BORY SD SUED TH WLY.ALG 5D SLY 9DRY TO TP08 LESS 8 11FT LESS. POR LT SLY OF P/L ESMT TGW POR 5E 1/4 OF S% 1/4 - 5EGG SE COR SD • SUED TH N 87 -45-57 V 1312.15 FT' TO SW COR SD SU90 TH N 00-50 -36 E 959.01 FT TO TPOB TH N 60 -27 -22 E 49.54 FT TH H 69 -47 E 50.80 FT TH N 76 -14 -21 E 50.45 FT TH M 33 -54 -41 E 75.43 FT TH S 99 -11 -35 E 70.65 FT TO C/L OF RR ESMT TH HLY 8 SLY AL6 SD C/L TAP S 12 -28 -30 5 33.38 FT & S 04 -34 -26 E 50.16 FT E S 01 -41 -39 W 54.76 FT FR A PT 280 FT FR C/L SOUTHCENTER PARKVAY S NLY MGM OF SE 1/4.OF SW 1/4 TH N 12 -28 -30 V 33.33 TH N 04 -34 -26 V 50.16 FT TH N 01 -41 -39 E 54.76 FT TO NLY M68 OF S E 1/4 OF SW 1/4 TH VLY'AL6 5D NLY KGH TO HH COR OF SE 1/4 OF SW 1/4 TH SLY AL6 VLY M6H SD SUED TO TPOS LESS NwLY 11 FT FR C/L SD RR °_SMT 6c SUBJECT TO: 1. Lien for general taxes not yet due or payable. 2. AN UNRECORDED herein named, therein provid Doted Lessee Term Disclosed by Affects LEASE affecting the premises herein stated, to the lessee for the term an8 upon the terms, covenants and conditions ed. : MARCH 14, 1978 : THE EOEING COMPANY, DELAWARE CORPORATION : 10 YEARS WITH OPTIONS TO EXTEND : PROVIDED TO TICOR : OFFICE BUILDING AND.1,100 PARKING SPACES 3. -7. Intentionally Omitted. 8. AGREEMENT executed by and between the parties herein named upon the conditions therein provided. Between : CITY OF TUK'AILA ANO STANLEY N. KASPERSOH, TRUSTEE Dated : JULY 21, 1969 Recorded : AUGUST 28, 1969 Auditor's File Ho.: 655762 Providing . COVENANTS, CONDITIONS OR RESTRICTIONS IMPOSED ON THE PROPERTY HEREIN DESCRIBED IN CONNECTION WITH THE PETITION TO REZONE PROPERTY HEREIN DESCRIBED AND OTHER ADJOINING PROPERTY INTO M -1 CLASSIFICATION AFFECTS A PORTION OF SAID PREMISES AND OTHER LANDS 9. HOLO HARMLESS AGREEMENT DATED NOVEMBER 24, BETWEEN JACK A. BENAROYA COMPANY AND THE CITY OF TUK'WILA, RECORDED DECEMBER 9, 1980 UNDER AUDITOR'S FILE NO. 8012090475, IN WHICH SAID COMPANY AGREES TO BOLO THE CITY HARMLESS AGAINST ANY CLAIM FOR DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF THE FAILURE OF A PROPOSED BACK FLOW PROTECTION VALVE AND RESERVOIR INSTALLED BY SAID COMPANY IN THE BASEMENT OF THE- PARKWAY PLAZA BUILDING AGAINST FUTURE .BACKUP AND FLOODING CAUSED BY SEWER MALI ON ADJOINING PROPERTIES, TO THE RECORD OF WHICH REFERENCE IS NERE3Y MADE FOR FULL PARTICULARS. 10. AGREEMENT executed by and between the p arties herein named upon the conditions therein provided. Between : THE CITY OF TUKWIL.A, - A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ANO JACK A. 3E:IAROYA COMPANY, A dAS',4G7CN COP.PO.' .AT.iON Gated : DECEMBER 21. 1E82 Recorded : JANUARY 3, 1983 Auditor's File Ho.: B3010203E9 Providing . PROPERTY USE AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, TO T - RECORD OF WHICH REFERENCE 15 BERE5Y ,MADE FOR PULL PARTICULARS. 11. AN EASEMENT with provisions, conditions and covenants as may be se: forth therein. • GRA:.A`_ SYSTEM INCLUDING CULVERTS AND DITC ES In r favor of STATE OF WASi.ING7O3 P•eflec:ed of record by in<_:rsa ^_n: Audi :or'; File No.: 5Z= 07•:3. 6Z4/00 ....0 '0 1. Affects 1 12. AN EASEMENT with provisions, therein. For In favor of Reflected of record Auditor's File No.: Affects • • : THAT'I ORTION BORDERING THE BOUNDARY LINE COMMON TO SAID SECTION 35, TOWNSHIP'23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W.M., IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, AND SAID SECTION 26, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W.H., IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON; TO THE RECORD OF WHICH REFERENCE IS HEREBY MADE FOR FULL PARTICULARS. conditions and covenants as may be set forth CONSTRUCTING AND MAINTAINING DRAINAGE EASEMENT SLOPES IN EXCAVATION AND /OR EMBANKMENT STATE OF WASHINGTON by instrument 6240704, 6240705 AND 6233537 PORTION BORDERING THE BOUNDARY LINE COMMON TO SAID SECTION 35, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W.M., IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON AND SECTION 26, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, H.M., IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, TO THE RECORD OF WHICH REFERENCE IS HEREBY MADE FOR FULL PARTICULARS. 13. AN EASEMENT with provisions,,conditions and covenants as may be set forth therein. For : A PERPETUAL RIGHT -OF -WAY OR EASEMENT FOR UTILITY MAINS AND LINES, TOGETHER WITH THE NECESSARY APPURTENANCES THERETO In favor of : CITY OF TUKWILA Reflected of record by instrument Auditor's File 110,: 6343866, 6343880, 6343882, 6343881 AND 6343878 Affects : A 15 FOOT WIDE STRIP OESCRIBED AS THE WESTERLY 15 FEET OF THE EASTERLY 21 FEET AS MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES TO SOUTHCENTER PARKWAY, TO THE RECORD OF WHICH REFERENCE IS HEREBY MADE FOR FULL PARTICULARS. 14. AN EASEMENT with provisions, conditions and covenants as may be set forth therein. For Reflected of record Auditor's File No.: Affects RAILROAD LEAD TRACK by instrument .6643574 THAT PORTION LYING WITHIN THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 35, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE. 4 EAST, N.H. IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, LYING WITHIN A STRI P OF LAND 19 FEET IN WIDTH- HAVING 9.5 FEET OF SAID WIDTH 011 EITHER SIDE OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED CENTERLINE: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAIO NORTHEAST QUARTER CF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER; THENCE 86iiH 87 °45'57" WEST ALONG THE NORTH LINE THE'EOF, 8 Cr) CID H M 0) CD Reflected of recor Recorded Auditor's File No. Affects d 1,12144 FET TO SOUTH , 16 °18 5" WEST TO A POINT OF CURVE; THENCE ALONG SAID CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVING A RADIUS OF 410.28 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF S7 °30'39" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 411.82 FEET 70 THE TERMINUS OF THIS EASEMENT 15. AN EASEMENT with provisions, conditions and covenants as may be set forth therein. For Reflected Auditor's 16, AN EASEMENT with provisions, conditions and covenants as may be set forth therein. INGRESS, EGRESS AND UTILITIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT For : LIMITED TO STORM' DRAINAGE, SANITARY. SEWER AND DOMESTIC WATER TO SERVE PROPERTY ADJOINING AND WESTERLY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PROPERTY In favor of • : HAROLD R. IVERSON AND MARION E. IVERSON, HIS WIFE Reflected of record by instrument Recorded JANUARY 5, 1977 Auditor's File No.: 7701050686 AND 7701050685 Affects : THE NORTHERLY 15 FEET OF THAT PORTION LYING WITHIN SECTION 35, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W.M. IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON AND SOUTHERLY 15 FEET OF THAT PORTION LYING WITHIN W SECTION N26, TOTOWNSHIP Y 3 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, WASHINGTON 17. AN EASEMENT with provisions, conditions and covenants as may be set forth therein. In favor of For TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, A MUNICIPAL : SANITARY SEWER of record by Instrument File No.: 6680144 AND 6680143 STORM SEWER THE CITY OF CORPORATION by instrument MARCH 22, 1977 7703220817 THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 26, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, N.M., IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, LYING WEST OF SOUTHCENTER PARKWAY (ALSO KNOWN AS 57TH AVENUE SOUTH); SAID EASEMENT SHALL BE CVER A STRIP OF LAND 20 FEET WIDE, LYING WITHIN THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PARCEL, THE CENTERLINE BEING DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: 18. AN EASEMENT with p therein. For In favor of Reflected of recor Recorded Auditor's File Ho. Affects : UNDERGROUND WATER LINE OR LINES CITY OF TUKWILA, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION d by instrument : MARCH 22, 1977 : 7703220818 . THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 26, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W.M., IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, LYING WITHIN A STRIP OF LAND 10 FEET IN WIDTH HAVING 5 FEET OF SAID WIDTH ON EACH SIDE OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED CENTERLINE: BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF:SA10 SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 26; THENCE NORTH 87'45'57° WEST ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST OUARTER A DISTANCE OF 481.05 FEET TO THE WEST MARGIN OF SOUTHCENTER PARKWAY; 10 COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SOUTHEAST QUARTER THE CENORTH87 °45'5" SOUTHWEST QUARTER F SECTION ESTALONG 26; LINE OF SAID SUBDIVISION, A DISTANCE OF 1,019.28 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE NORTH 42 °45'54" WEST 90.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 21 ° 30'00" EAST, 179.43 FEET;... THENCE NORTH 00'19'15" EAST, 574.23 FEET; THENCE NORTH 60 ° 00'00" WEST, 96.71 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 81 WEST, 205.00 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO A POINT ON THE WEST LINE OF SAID SUBDIVISION AND THERE TERMINATING, THE SIDE LINES OF SAID STRIP BEING PROLONGED OR SHORTENED TO TERMINATE AT THE • BOUNDARY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PROPERTY. AND.SAID EASEMENT SHALL ALSO BE OVER THAT PORTION OF SAID PARCEL, DESCRIBED AS.FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 25, THENCE NORTH 0 ° 56'36" EAST ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID SUBDIVISION A DISTANCE OF 799.0 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SOUTH 89 EAST, S AT N RIGHT F ANGLES TO SAID THENCE WEST 00 °56 DISTANCE 20.00 FEET; '36" WEST PARALLEL WITH SAID WEST HC LINE, A DISTANCE OF 50.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 89 1 03 1 24• WEST, 20.00 FEET TO THE WEST LINE OF SAID SUBDIVISION AND THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. rovisions, conditions and covenants as may be set forth • THENCE NORTH 11 °59'33" WEST ALONG SAID WEST MARGIN A DISTANCE OF 419.58 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE SOUTH 78 ° 00'27 ° WEST A DISTANCE OF 50.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 11 °59'33" WEST A DISTANCE OF 160.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 78 °00'27" WEST A DISTANCE OF 190.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 11 °59'33" WEST A DISTANCE OF 160.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 01 °29'24" EAST A DISTANCE OF 202.78 FEET; THENCE NORTH 43 °51'25" WEST A DISTANCE OF 102.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 01 ° 08'35" EAST A DISTANCE OF 178.50 FEET TO THE TERMINUS OF THIS EASEMENT. 19. AN EASEMENT with provisions, conditions and covenants as may be set forth therein. For : UNDERGROUND STORM LINE OR LINES In favor of : CITY OF TUKWILA, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION Reflected of record by instrument . Recorded ; MARCH 22, 1977 Auditor's File No.: 7703220819 Affects : THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 26, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W.M. IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, LYING WITHIN A STRIP OF LAUD 10 FEET IN WIDTH, HAVING 5 FEET OF SAM' WIDTH OH EACH SIDE OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED CENTERLINE: BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 26; THENCE NORTH 87 °45'57" WEST ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER A DISTANCE OF 1,312.15 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER; THENCE NORTH 00 °56'36" EAST A DISTANCE OF 819.01 FEET; THENCE NORTH 85 EAST A DISTANCE OF 160.64 ' FEET; THENCE NORTH 40 ° 10'04" EAST A DISTANCE OF 10 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE NORTH 54 °56'50" EAST A DISTANCE OF 87.31 FEET; 11 12 THENCE SOUTH 89 ° 40'45" EAST A DISTANCE OF 32.00 gr /IE SOUTH 72 °55'37" EAST A DISTANCE OF 77.65 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 67 °41'17" EAST A DISTANCE OF 125.35 FEET; THENCE NORTH 85 ° 12'11" EAST A DISTANCE OF 174.86 FEET TO THE WEST MARGIN OF SOUTHCENTER PARKWAY AND SAID INSTRUMENT COUTA NS.THE RECITAL: GRANTOR ACKNOWLEDGES THAT SAID STORM LINE OR LINES MAY AFFECT THE NATURAL DRAINAGE FLOW ACROSS PROPERTY OWNED BY GRANTOR ADJOINING THE EASEMENT AND RIGHT °OF -NAY AND, RELEASES GRANTEE FROM ANY AND ALL DAMAGE THAT MAY BE CAUSED BY SAID DRAINAGE FLOW. 20. AN EASEMENT with provisions, conditions and covenants as may be set forth therein. For : THE CONSTRUCTION, MAINTENANCE AND OPERATION OF A LEAD TRACK In favor of : THE CHICAGO, MILWAUKEE, ST. PAUL AND PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, A WISCONSIN CORPORATION, THE . OREGON- WASHINGTON RAILROAD AND NAVIGATION COMPANY, AN OREGON CORPORATION, AND ITS LESSEE, UNION PACIFIC , RAILROAD COMPANY, A UTAH CORPORATION Reflected of record by instrument Recorded . : NOVEMBER 9, 1977 Auditor's File No.: 7711090221 Affects : THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 26, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W.N.,.IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON LYING WITHIN A STRIP OF LAND 22 FEET IN 'WIDTH HAVING 11 FEET OF SAID WIDTH ON EACH SIDE OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED CENTERLINE: BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 26; THENCE NORTH 87 °45'57" WEST ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER A DISTANCE OF 1,121.44 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE NORTH 16 °18'55" EAST A DISTANCE OF 82.00 FEET TO A POINT HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS POINT °A';' TOGETHER WITH A STRIP OF LAND 36 FEET IN .WIDTH .HAVING 11 FEET OF SAID WIDTH ON THE WEST SIDE AND 25 FEET OF SAID WIDTH ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED CENTERLINE: CO N AT ORTH E I6°118 E5 5 NTEASTDA P DISTAN DISTANCE fjEET; THENCE ALONG A CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVING A RADIUS OF 661.74 FEET, AN ARC DISTANCE OF 184.73 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 15 ° 59'40 "; THENCE NORTH 00 ° 19 1 15 ". EAST A DISTA.NCE OF 349.93 FEET TO A POINT HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS POINT '6 "; TOGETHER WITH A STRIP OF LAND 22 FEET IN WIDTH HAVING 11 FEET OF SAID WIDTH ON THE WEST SIDE AND 11 FEET OF SAID WIDTH ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED CENTERLINE: BEGINNING AT THE AFOREMENTIONED POINT 'B "• THENCE CONTINUING NORTH 00 ° 19'15' EAST A DISTANCE OF 179.00 FEET TO A POINT HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS POINT TOGETHER WITH A STRIP OF LAND 22 FEET IN WIDTH HAVING 11 FEET OF SAID WIDTH ON THE NORTHWEST SIDE AND 11 FEET OF SAID WIDTH ON THE SOUTHEAST SIDE OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED CENTERLINE: BEGINNING AT THE AFOREMENTIONED POINT 'C °; THENCE ALONG A CURVE TO THE EIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OF 41C.28 FEET AN ARC DISTANCE OF 607.25 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 84 ° 48'12° TO THE WEST MARGIN OF SOUTHCENTER PARKWAY AND THE TERMINUS OF THIS EASEMENT. 21. AN EASEMENT with therein. For : COMMON DRIVEWAY In favor of : AMERICAN NATIONAL OTIN Reflected of record by0instrument Recorded : MAY 12, 1973 Auditor's File Ho.; 7E05120170 Affects : THAT PORTION LYING WITHIN THAT PORTION OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE HORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 35, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W.N IN KING COUNTY. WASHINGTON, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER; THENCE NORTH 87 ° 45'57" WEST ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID NORTHWEST QUARTER, A DISTANCE OF 4 81.05 FEET TO THE WESTERLY MARGIN OF SOUTHCENTER PARKWAY; provisions, conditions 13 INSURANCE and covenants as may be set forth COMPANY, A TEXAS 14 THENCE SOUTH 11 ° 59'33" EAST ALONG SAID WESTERLY MARGIN A OISTANCE OF 41.27 FEET TO A POINT OF INTERSECTION OF SAID WESTERLY MARGIN WITH THE NORTHERLY BOUNDARY OF THAT CE TRACT OF LAND CONVEYED BY THE MC CANN DEVELOPMENT CORP. TO AMERICAN NATIONAL, INSURANCE COMPANY BY STATUTORY WARRANTY DEED RECORDED OCTOBER 16, 1970, UNDER AUDITOR'S FILE NO. 6704630 IN THE RECORDS OF KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, WHICH POINT IS THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID TRACT ANO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE SOUTH 11• °$9'33" EAST ALONG SAID WESTERLY MARGIN A DISTANCE OF 25.79 FEET; THENCE NORTH 81 WEST PARALLEL WITH AND 25.00 FEET SOUTH, MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES OF THE NORTHERLY BOUNDARY OF SAID TRACT OF LAND, A DISTANCE OF 284.09 FEET; THENCE NORTH 42 ° 30'27" EAST A DISTANCE OF 65.45 FEET TO A POINT WHICH I5 25.00 FEET NORTH, MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES, OF THE NORTHERLY BOUNDARY OF SAID TRACT OF LAND; THENCE SOUTH 87 °45'57" EAST PARALLEL WITH AND 25.00 FEET NORTH, MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES, OF THE NORTHERLY BOUNDARY OF SAID TRACT OF LAND, A DISTANCE OF 174.13 FEET TO THE WESTERLY MARGIN OF SOUTHCENTER PARKWAY; THENCE SOUTH 11 ° 59'33" EAST ALONG SAM WESTERLY MARGIN A DISTANCE OF 25.79 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. 22. AN EASEMENT with provisions, conditions and covenants as may be set forth therein. For : UNDERGROUNO UTILITY PURPOSES, INCLUDING THE INSTALLATION, MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR OF SANITARY SEWER LINES AND APPURTENANCES THERETO Reflected of record by instrument Recorded : NOVEMBER 20, 1979 Auditor's File No.: 7911200472 Affects : THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTHEAST OUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 26, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W.H., IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, LYING WITHIN A STRIP OF LAND 10 FEET IN WIDTH, HAVING 5 FEET OF SAID WIDTH ON EACH SIOE OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED CENTERLINE: BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SOUTHEAST QUARTER qF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 26; THENCE NORTH 87 °45'57" WEST ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER A DISTANCE OF 1,153.39 FEET; THENCE NORTH 16 °18;55" EAST A DISTANCE OF 194.99 FEET; THENCE NORTH 35 ° 19'33" EAST A DISTANCE OF 127.49 FEET; THENCE NORTH 04 °34'07" EAST A O!STANCE OF 279.94 FEET; THENCE NORTH 04 °45'09" EAST A DISTANCE OF 345.42 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE NORTH 49 °45'05" WEST A DISTANCE OF 14.00 FEET; • THENCE NORTH 12 ° 33'41" EAST A DISTANCE OF 176.15 FEET; Ch THENCE SOUTH 88 ° 51'25" EAST A DISTANCE OF 64.00 FEET OD TO THE TERMINUS OF THIS EASEMENT. 0 23. AN EASEMENT with Provisions, conditions and covenants as may be set forth C') therein. For • WATER LINE CV N Reflected of record by instrument 0I Recorded : JUNE 25, 1980 CO Auditor's File No.: 8006250222 Affects : THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 26, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W.M., IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, LYING WITHIN A STRIP OF LAND 10 FEET IN WIDTH, HAYING 5 FEET OF SAID WIDTH ON EACH SIDE OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED CENTERLINE: BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 26; THENCE NORTH 87 ° 45'57" WEST ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER A DISTANCE OF 485.01 FEET TO THE WEST MARGIN OF SOUTHCENTER PARKWAY AS ESTABLISHED IN KING COUNTY AUDITOR'S FILE NO. 6343848; THENCE NORTH 11 ° 59'33" WEST ALONG SAID WEST MARGIN A DISTANCE OF 419.58 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 78 °00'27" WEST A DISTANCE OF 50.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 11 °59'33" WEST A DISTANCE OF 160.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 78 °00'27" WEST A DISTANCE OF 190.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 11 °59'33" WEST A DISTANCE OF 160.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 01 ° 29'24" EAST A OISTAUCE OF 154.36 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE SOUTH 68 °30'52" EAST A DISTANCE OF 32.45 FEET AND THE TERMINUS OF THIS EASEMENT. 15 • 24. AN EASEMENT with provisions conditions and covenants as may be set forth therein. For • SANITARY SEVER Reflected of record by instrument Recorded JUNE 25, 1980 Auditor's File No.: 8006250223 Affects : THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 26, TOWNSHIP 23 0 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, N.M., IN XING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, LYING WITHIN A. STRIP OF LAND 10 FEET IN WIDTH, HAVING 5 FEET OF SAID, WIDTH OM EACH SIDE OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED CENTERLINE: BEGINNING AT THE CORNEA OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 26; THENCE NORTH 87 ° 45'57" WEST ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER A DISTANCE OF 1,153.39 FEET; THENCE NORTH 16 ° 18'55" EAST A DISTANCE OF 194.99 FEET; THENCE NORTH 35 ° 19'33" EAST A DISTANCE OF 127.49 FEET; THENCE NORTH 04'34'07" EAST A DISTANCE OF 279.94 FEET; THENCE NORTH 04'45'09" EAST A DISTANCE OF 345.42 FEET TO A MANHOLE AND THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE SOUTH 45 0 19'08" EAST A DISTANCE OF 158.87 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 6 2 0 5232° EA5T A DISTANCE OF 28.40 FEET TO THE TERMINUS OF THIS EASEMENT. 25. AN EASEMENT with provisions, conditions and covenants as may be set forth therein. For : WATER LINE : THE CITY OF TUK'WILA, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF KING Reflected of record by COUNTY OF WASHINGTON Recorded : AUGU5T 7, 1980 Auditor's File No.: 8008070421 Affects : THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTHEAST Q HE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 26, 22 OF RANGE 4 EAST, W.M., IN KING COUNTY, WASHIUGTO.'i, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 26; THENCE NORTH 87 °45'47" WEST ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF DISTANCE OUTOFA548 QUARTER 05 FEET TO MRGIN QUARTER SOUTHCENTER PARKWAY; THENCE NORTH 11 ° 59'33" 'JEST ALONG SAIO WEST MARGIN A OISTANC! OF 574.58 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 78 ° 00'27" WEST ALONG SAID WEST MARGIN A DISTANCE OF 235 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE SOUTH 11 ° 59'33" EAST A DISTANCE OF 127.00 In favor of 16 26. AN EASEMENT with therein. For In favor of Reflected Recorded Auditor's Affects 17 • FEET; THENCE SOUTH 78 °00'27" WEST A DISTANCE OF 20.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 11'59'33" WEST A DISTANCE OF 180.50 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 78 ° 00'27" WEST A DISTANCE OF 14.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 47 ° 06'15' WEST A DISTANCE OF 132.50 FEET; THENCE NORTH 42 °53'45" WEST A DISTANCE OF 15.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 47 EAST A DISTANCE OF 157.79 FEET; THENCE NORTH 78 °00'27" EAST A DISTANCE OF 10.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 11 ° 59'33" EAST A DISTANCE OF 79.36 FEET; THENCE NORTH 78'00'27" EAST A DISTANCE OF 10.00 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. provisions, conditions and covenants as may be set : UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC SYSTEM : PUGET SOUND POWER AND LIGHT CORPORATION of record by instrument : NOVEMBER 26, 1980 File No.: 8011260890 : A RIGHT -OF -WAY 10 FEET IN WIDTH HAYING 5 FEET OF SUCH WIDTH ON EACH SIDE OF A CENTERLINE DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: forth COMPANY, A WASHINGTON BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 26; THENCE NORTH 87 °45'57" WEST ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER A DISTANCE OF 481.05 FEET TO THE WEST MARGIN OF SOUTHCENTER PARKWAY AS ESTABLISHED IN KING COUNTY AUDITOR'S FILE NOS. 6343862, 6343863, 6343865, 6343867 AND 6343868; THENCE NORTH 11 ° 59'33" WEST ALONG SAID WEST MARGIN A DISTANCE OF 155.59 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE HEREIN DESCRIEED CENTERLINE; THENCE SOUTH 83'24'57" WEST A DISTANCE OF 26.11 FEET; THENCE NORTH 84'26'53" WEST A DISTANCE OF 57.75 FEET; THENCE NORTH 87 ° 59'18" WEST A DISTANCE OF 52.90 FEET; THENCE NORTH 83 °51'08" WEST A DISTANCE OF 36.38 FEET; THENCE NORTH 87 °40'03" WEST A DISTANCE OF 35.31 FEET; THENCE NORTH 87 °44'53" WEST A DISTANCE OF 26.67 FEET; Reflected of record Recorded Auditor's File No.: Affects 27. AN EASEMENT with provisions, conditions and therein. For In favor of THENCo'.. NORTH 88 °56 '.23" NEST A DISTANCE OF 113.62 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 85'28'57" WEST A DISTANCE OF 79.97 FEET; THENCE NORTH 75 °10'23" WEST A DISTANCE OF 66.40 FEET; THENCE NORTH 00 °45'33" WEST A DISTANCE OF 31.08 FEET; THENCE NORTH 11 °26'18" WEST A DISTANCE OF 13.76 FEET; THENCE NORTH 03 °58'03" HEST A DISTANCE OF 38.75- FEET; THENCE NORTH 06 ° 56'32" EAST A DISTANCE OF 40.48 FEET; THENCE NORTH 22 ° 03'12" EAST A DISTANCE OF 7.32 FEET; THENCE NORTH 05 °07'52" EAST A DISTANCE OF 9.18 FEET; THENCE NORTH 61 °50'22" EAST A DISTANCE OF 4.50 FEET; THENCE EAST A DISTANCE OF 10.00 FEU TO THE TERMINUS OF SAID CENTERLINE. WATER LINE CITY OF TUKWILA, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF KING COUNTY, STATE OF WASHINGTON by instrument . DECEMBER 11, 1980 8012110210 THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 26, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W.H., IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, LYING WITHIN A STRIP OF LAND 10 FEET IN WIDTH, HAVING 5 FEET OF SAID WIDTH ON EACH SIDE OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED CENTERLINE: BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 26; THENCE NORTH 87 °45'57" HEST ALONG 7HE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER A DISTANCE OF 481.05 FEET TO THE WEST MARGIN OF SOUTHCENTER PARKWAY AS ESTABLISHED IN KING COUNTY AUDITOR'S FILE NOS. 6342862, 6343863, 6343865, 6343E67 AND 6343658; 16 covenants as • may be set forth 19 THENCE SOUTH 11 ° 59'33 ° EAST ALONG SAID WEST MARGIN A DISTANCE OF 41.27 FEET; THENCE NORTH 87 °45'57" NEST A DISTANCE OF 210.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 11 ° 59'33" WEST A DISTANCE OF 164.74 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 78 ° 00'27" WEST A DISTANCE OF 3.73 FEET TO.THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE NORTH 1Z ° 17'02" HEST A DISTANCE OF 86.41 FEET; THENCE NORTH 11 ° 03'57" WEST A DISTANCE OF 77.50 FEET; THENCE NORTH 09 ° 05'47" WEST A DISTANCE OF 68.22 Le, Le OD FEET; THENCE NORTH 02 °49'07" HEST A DISTANCE OF 37.65 01 FEET; ( THENCE NORTH 13 °21•'22" WEST A DISTANCE OF 36.41 ri THENCE SOUTH 71 °15'18" WEST A DISTANCE OF 39 FEET MORE OR LESS TO THE EAST LINE OF THAT CERTAIN WATER LINE EASEMENT DESCRIBED UNDER KING COUNTY RECEIVING NO. 8008070421 AND THE TERMINUS OF THIS EASEMENT. TOGETHER WITH THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 26, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, N.M., IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAIO SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 26; THENCE NORTH 87'45'57" WEST ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER A DISTANCE OF 481.05 FEET TO THE WEST MARGIN OF 50UTHCENTER PARKWAY AS ESTABLISHED IN KING COUNTY AUDITOR'S FILE NOS. 6343862, 6343863, 6343865, 6343867 AND 66343868; THENCE SOUTH 11 ° 59'33" EAST ALONG SAID WEST MARGIN A DISTANCE OF 41.27 FEET; THENCE NORTH 87 °45'57' WEST A DISTANCE OF 210.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 11'59'33' WEST A DISTANCE OF 57.80 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE CONTINUING NORTH I1'59'23" WEST DISTANCE OF 177.74 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 87 ° 45'57" EAST A DISTANCE OF 10.32 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 11 °59'33" EAST A DISTANCE OF 177.74 FEET; THENCE NORTH 87 °45'57' WEST A DISTANCE OF 10.32 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. 28. AH EASEMENT with provisions, conditions and covenants as may be set forth therein. For : UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC Tf ;N5MJSSIOH AND /OR DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM 14 In favor of : PUGET SOUND POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY, A WASHINGTON CID CORPORATION o Reflected of record by instrument Cr) Recorded : NOVEMBER 29, 1984 • N Auditor's File No.: 8411290970 C4 Affects : THE EASTERLY 15 FEET OF SAID PREMISES AND OTHER Cr) PORTIONS OF SAID PREMISES 0. EASEMENTS FOR INGRESS AND EGRESS OVER PORTION OF SAID PREMISES AS REFLECTED OF RECORD BY INSTRUMENT RECORDED OCTOBER 24, 1983 UNDER AUDITOR'S FILE NO, 8310240681, TO THE RECORD OF WHICH REFERENCE I5 HERE3Y MADE FOR FULL PARTICULARS. 30. COVENANT to bear equal share of the cost of the construction, maintenance or repair of the improvement herein described Recorded : MAY 12, 1978 Auditor's File No.: 7805120170 Improvement : COMMON DRIVEWAY Location : AS DESCRIBED THEREIN 20 I' j,. 0 i cn PUBLIC ACZ74CY 1UR1 PERS- IHV -M -16 SPECIAL (Rev. 6/87) State of California County of Sacramento c December 21, 1989 , before so, tho undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared Roger Fran personally known to oe (or provod to co on tho basis of satisfactory evidenco) to be the Mortgage investment Officer (title of officer of agency) of State of California Public Fnnlovoos' Rntirenent 5vn:teo , and acknowledged to co that such Stnte of (name of public corporation, agency or political subdivision) (name of C,lifornle. Public Eonloveer.' Petirennnt Svsten executed the Gaon. public corporation, agency, or political subdivision) WITNESS try hand and official seal: (SEAL) 'lnlnnll8nxlmnIIIIontu OmnulfIIiIIIIInInuunlmmmn JERALYN FLORES NOTARY PUWC - CALIFORNIA 0 SACRAMENTO COUNTY c My CommMdm Eaym Der. 3.14i1 a i11ItI1tnIIIt11411uII1101L Illllutlll ll G 6 S r.u■ This Special Warranty Deed, Assignment of Rights and Assignment of Lessor's Interest in Lease may be signed in any number of counterparts, all of which together shall be deemed to be one and the pane document. Dated: December 29, 1989 PACIFIC NORTHWEST CROUP A Ss. WITNESS my hand and official seal. By: CALIFORNIA STATE TEACHERS' 1 RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Joint TEACHERS' RETIREMENT SYSTEM, and acknowledged to m© that said public agency executed it. Notary Public in and for the State of California 21 TOTAL F.04 ......rte• vv. .. __nl,.- LW ...1 .vJ, .1V11..4 This Special Warranty Deed, Assignment of Rights and Assignment of Lessor's Interest in Lease may be signed in 'any number of counterparts, all Of which together shall be deemed to be one and the sane document. Dated: December 29, 1989 PACIFIC NORTHWEST CROUP A By: CALIFORNIA STATE TEACHERS' RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Joint Venturer STATE OF CALIPORNIA ) ) as. COUNTY OP SACRAMENTO) WITNESS my hand and official seal. 21 By: Its: Byt CALIFORNIA STATE PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Joint Venturer By: Its:4 By: CROW -S -H . Joint Venturer By: Ito: On this day of , in the year 1989, before me, , a notary public in and for said county and state, personally appeared , personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person who executed this inetrument as of CALIFORNIA STATE TEACHERS' RETIREMENT SYSTEM, and acJCnowlodged to me that said public agency executed it. Notary Public in and for the State of California TOTAL P.C4 , OFFICIAL SEAL PATRICIA M. CADE 4_ NCTAI:Y f'UDLIC• C�1L6:IRNIA ,�• *c/ SACPAI.'EtJT CODUTY .` y ' i • 1 M, Cumin E.pl.., Srcl Z5. ICCO JAL This Special Warranty Deed, Assignment of Rights and Assignment of Loeeor's Interest in Lease may be signed in any number of counterparts, all of which together shall be deemed to be ohs and the Bane document. Dated: December 29, 1989 STATE or CALIFORNIA es. COUNTY OP 9ACRAHENTO) 2 1 PACIFIC NORTHWEST GROUP A By: CALIFORNIA STATE TEACHERS' RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Joint Ven rs By1 Its:. Ey: rte S RETIRLMEMT PUBLIC SYSTEM, Joint Venturer Dy: By: CROW -O -R (118, Joint Venturer Ey: Its: On this � day of lecerr+ E rr", in the year 1969, before me,n.�rtr1 ( �l o__, a notary public n and for said coup y an stn e, perrona y nppenred 14tr P M n s rrtI n personally known to me or proved to me on the basis of eatisfacto ev dent.) to •e the person who executed this instrument as . • 16 'or of CALIFORNIA STATE TEACHERS' RETIREMENT SISTER, a • ac now e•god to no that said public agency executed it. WITNESS ty hand and official seal. Notary Puiiliclt an for the State of California 1 • 1. 12/20/1989 12:= GPAHAM SEATII.E 1 This Special Warranty Det1:1, Assignment 111'. RicyLts Assignment of Lessor's Interact in Lease ma7 b. .:igna In .iny number of counterparts, all of which together s%al; be deor. to be one and the same docuMent. • Dated: December r 29 1989 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) Ss. COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO) 21 PACIFIC 1ORTNITE3T CAC"..rr: A MT:REPENT SYSTEM, .7oint venturer Hy: CALIrORNZA STATE runic EMIMOIEFO' SYSTEM, Joint Venturer By: CROW-Z1-11 P118, Joint Vent.urcr On thin clay cf . . An the year 1989, before no public tn ar.:: for county and state, personally appeared , personally known to me (or provea me on ciie basis of satisfactory uvidence) to be the person wh eYe,c1.1t this instrument as of CAL:FOPNI!. :1TPTK TEACHERS' RETIREMENT SYTITMT and a.E to me that s!f6 public agency executed it. WITNESS my Moil and official b4D'arVP and for the 'Alate 2' 1 A 4 1111. P .1? STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ss. COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO) On this day of , in the year 1989, before me,• , a notary public in and for said county and state, personally appeared , personally known to me (or proved me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person who executed this instrument as of STATE OF CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM, and acknowledged to me that said public agency executed it. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Notary Public in and for the State of California 12 STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss. C) COUNTY OF KING ) 04 On this day personally appeared before me r ( F.,..... , to me known to be the individual- described in and who executed the within and foregoing instrument, 00 and acknowledged. that 4'., signed the same as 1,_:„. free and voluntary act and deed, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned. WITNES MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL HERETO AFFIXED this 20 day of j� . , 1989. NOTARY PUBLIC in and for,/ the State of Washington, residing at My Commission Expires: 22 AMendment of easement JuI THIS AMENDMENT OF EASEMENT ( "Amendment') is entered into this Z){FFday of 1995, by and between PACIFIC NORTHWEST GROUP A. a joint venture consisting of State of California Public Employees' Retirement System and California State Teachers' Retirement System (PNGA "), and P- 3/PARKWAY LLC, a Washington limited liability company ("P•3 ") RECITALS A. By that certain Special Warranty Decd, Assignment of Rights and Assignment of Lessor's Interest in Lease dated December 29, 1989, and recorded under King County Auditor's File No. 8912290859 (the "Special Warranty Deed"), PNGA conveyed certain real property to Shidler/West Finance Partners III Limited Partnership ("Shidler/West"), reserving .unto itself an ingress /egress - easement over thc real property legally described on on fp_atiL.6. attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference (the "Easement "); and B. P -3 has succeeded to thc interest of Shidler/West under the Special Warranty Deed: C. The parties hereby desire to amend the location of the Ease: tent. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises contained herein and other valuable consideration. thc receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows: AGREEMENT The legal description of thc Easement shall be and hereby is amended to read as set forth in Exhibit B attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, as shown on Exhibit ibit C attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. 2. Except as modified by paragraph 1 ubove, all of the rights and interests deeded. granted. assigned and reserved under the Special Warranty Decd remain in full force and effect. 3. This Amendment may bc signed in any number of counterparts, all of which together shall be dccmcd to bc one and the same document IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment of Easement on the day and year first above written. PACIFIC NORTHWEST GROUP A, a California joint venture Bg: LMP CALIFORNIA RE RETIREMENT SYSTEM. SYSTEM. Joint Venturer RECEIVED 'JUN 2 8 2004 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 0 I :YM K OVNOM EASFAMNa CW EXII7BIT A TO AMENDMENT OF EASEMENT Lees! Description of Easement in Special Warranty Decd Easement for ingress and egress described as follows: Beginning at the northeast comer of the northeast quarter of the northwest quarter of Section 35, Township 23 North, Range 4 East, W.M., in the City of Tukwila, County of King, State of Washington; Thence N 87 °45'5T W along the north line of said northeast quarter of the northwest quarter a distance of 481.05 feet to the west margin of Southcenter Parkway as CD established in King County Auditor's Fde No. 6343848; Thence S 115933" E along said west margin a distance of 4127 feet; ' „ 4 Thence N 87°45'5T W a distance of 210.00 feet to the true point of beginning; Thence continuing N 87°45'57" W a distance of 19.11 feet; Thence S 42°30'27" W a distance of 26.38 feet; Thence N 11°59'33" W a distance of 33632 feet; Thence N 02 °14'03" E a distance of 108.30 feet; Thence N 11933" W a distance of 519.86 feel; Thence N 88 '51'25" W a distance of 152.31 fcct to the centerline of a railroad casement as described under King County Receiving No. 7711090221; Thence northerly along said centerline on a curve to the right, the center of which bears S 89`05'19" E having a radius of 410.28 fcct, an arc distance of 24.01 feet through a central angle of 03°21'11 "; Thence leaving said centerline of the railroad casement S 88°51'25" E a distance of 78.65 feet; Thence N 01'08'35" E a distance of 198.66 feet; Thence S 88°5175" E a d of 20.00 feet; Thence S 01'1835" W a distance of 198.66 feet; Thence N 86 °40'03" E a distance of 274.13 feet to the west margin of Southcenter Parkway as established in King County Auditor's File No. 6343868; Thence southerly along said west margin on a curve to the left, the center of which bears N 85°13'08" E having a radius of 99137 feet, an arc distance of 40.00 feet through a central angle of 02°18'42 "; Thence leaving said west margin of Southcenter Parkway S 85 °12'11" W a distance of 182.00 feet; Thence S 119'33" E a distance of 50204 feet; Thence S 02°1493" W a distance of 27.67 feet; Thence S 8745'57 E a distance of 18956 feet to the west margin of Southcenter : 1 Parkway as established in King County Auditor's File No. 6343867; Thence S 11 '5933" E along said west margin a distance of 56.74 feet; Thence N 87 °4557" W a distance 01'203.50 feet; ;1 Thence S 02'14'03" W a distance of 25.63 feet; j Thence S 1159'33" E a distance of 320.70 feet to the true point of beginning. r A -1 is 1 1/2 EXHIBIT B INGRESS AND EGRESS EASEMENT DESCRIPTION Alb BUSH, HOED & HITCHINGS, WC. THOSE PORTIONS OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 26, AND OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 35, ALL IN TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W.M., IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 35, THENCE NORTH 87°45'57" WEST 481.05 FEET ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER TO THE WESTERLY MARGIN OF SOUTHCENTER PARKWAY AS ESTABLISHED IN KING COUNTY AUDITOR'S FILE NO. 6343848; THENCE SOUTH 11 °59'33" EAST 41.27 FEET ALONG SAID WESTERLY MARGIN; THENCE NORTH 87 °45'57" WEST 210.00 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE CONTINUING NORTH 87 0 45'57" WEST 19.11 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 42 °30'27" WEST 39.46 FEET; THENCE NORTH 47 °26'18" WEST 174.12 FEET; THENCE NORTH 02 °22'40" EAST 195.73 FEET; ':'HENCE NORTH 32 °15'24" EAST 38.14 FEET; THENCE NORTH 02 °22'40" EAST 225.95 FEET; THENCE NORTH 27 °37'12" WEST 38.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 02 °22'40" EAST 129.78 FEET; THENCE NORTH 11 °59 WEST 204.12 FEET; THENCE NORTH 87.37'20" WEST 172.34 FEET TO THE CENTERLINE OF A RAILROAD EASEMENT ESTABLISHED BY INSTRUMENT RECORDED UNDER KING COUNTY RECORDING NO. 7711090221; THENCE ALONG SAID CENTERLINE THE FOLLOWING TWO COURSES: THENCE NORTH 00 °19'15" EAST 12.66 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE CONCAVE EASTERLY HAVING A RADIUS OF 410.28 FEET; THENCE NORTHERLY 31.86 FEET ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 04'26'59 "; THENCE LEAVING SAID CENTERLINE SOUTH 76 °49'59" EAST 80.19 FEET; THENCE NORTH 01 °08'35" EAST 211.75 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 88 °51'25" EAST 20.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 01'08'35" WEST 198.66 FEET; THENCE NORTH 86 °40'03" EAST 274.13 FEET TO SAID WESTERLY MARGIN OF SOUTHCENTER PAP.KWAY AND THE BEGINNING OF A NON- TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE EASTERLY HAVING A RADIUS OF 991.37 FEET (A RADIAL LINE THROUGH SAID BEGINNING BEARS SOUTH 85 °13'08" WEST); THENCE SOUTHERLY 40.00 FEET ALONG SAID CURVE AND WESTERLY MARGIN THROUGH A CENTRAL. ANGLE OF 02 °18'42 "; THENCE LEAVING SAID WESTERLY MARGIN SOUTH 85 °12'11" WEST 182.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 11.59'33" EAST 209.11 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 02.22'40" WEST 126.24 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 27 °37 EAST 38.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 02.22'40" WEST 162.06 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 87 EAST 245.95 FEET TO SAID WESTERLY MARGIN OF SOUTHCENTER PARKWAY; THENCE SOUTH 11 °59'33" EAST 40.26 FEET ALONG SAID WESTERLY MARGIN; THENCE LEAVING SAID WESTERLY MARGIN NORTH 87 °37'12" WEST 255.94 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 02 °22'40" WEST 38.26 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 32 WEST 38.14 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 02 °22'40" WEST 63.32 FEET TO A POINT HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS POINT "A "; THENCE SOUTH 87.37'20" EAST 78.66 FEET TO A POINT HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS POINT "B "; THENCE CONTINUING SOUTH 87.37'20" EAST 20.65 FEET TO A POINT WHICH BEARS NORTH 11 ° 59'33" WEST FROM THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE SOUTH 11 0 59'33" EAST 214.59 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; =Ea THAT PORTION THEREOF DESCRIBED AS FOLLows: COMMENCING AT POINT "A" DESCRIBED ABOVE, THENCE SOUTH 02•22'40" WEST 18.00 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE SOUTH 87 °37'20" EAST 83.27 FEET TO A POINT WHICH BEARS SOUTH 11 ° 59'33" EAST FROM SAID POINT "B "; THENCE SOUTH 11 9 59'33" EAST 35.76 FEET; THENCE NORTH 87 °37'20" WEST 92.15 FEET TO A POINT WHICH BEARS SOUTH 02 0 22'40" WEST FROM THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE NORTH 02 °22'40" EAST 34.65 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; ALSO FXCFPT THAT PORTION THEREOF DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMiENCING AT SAID POINT "A ", THENCE SOUTH 02 °22'4 WEST 70.65 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE SOUTH 87 °37'20" EAST 96.76 FEET TO A POINT WHICH BEARS SOUTH 11 EAST FROM SAID POINT "B "; THENCE SOUTH 11'59'33" EAST 112.43 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 42 °30'27" WEST 18.47 FEET; THENCE NORTH 87•37'20" WEST 18.58 FEET; THENCE NORTH 47 °26'18" WEST 123.28 FEET TO A POINT WHICH BEARS SOUTH 02 °22'40" WEST FROM THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE NORTH 02'22'40" EAST 43.49 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. SITUATE IN THE CITY OF TUKWILA, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. 4 -19-q 2/2 4 BUSH, ROED & HITCHINGS, INC. RENTON VILLAGE ASSOCIATES PARK PLACE WILLIAM A. HICKOX, P L.S. BRH JOB NO. 94187.02 APRIL 18, 1995 slag EXHIBIT C TO AMENDMENT OF EASEMENT Survey Showine Amended Easemcnt STATE OF WASHINGTON COUNTY OF KING DATED: ssssssssssssss a ( r • NY PUBLIC 4 1.1A1 aotuttt`� t au:orsGA ASEA noctc ) ss. I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that MICHAEL SANDORFFY is the person who appeared before me, and said person acknowledged that he signed this instrument. on oath stated that he was authorized to execute the Instrument and acknowledged it as the Manager of P- 3/PARKWAY L.LC. to be the free and voluntary act of such parry for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. {S ignature) Mara k. Gofer (Please print name legibly) NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Washington. residing at 12eArlDri My commission expires 2(R /Qq 9507210282 Restrictive Covenant (3) DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIVE COVENANT RECITALS -l- THIS DECLARATION OF CTIVE COVENANT (the "Restrictive Covenant ") is made and executed this day of , 1995, by and between PACIFIC NORTHWEST GROUP A, a joint venture consisting of State of California Public Employees' Retirement System and California State Teachers Retirement System (PNGA"), and P- 3/PARKWAY LL.C.. a Washington limited liability company ("P -31. A P -3 is the owner of the real property in King County. Washington, described on Exhibit A attached hereto (thc 7 Property'). PNGA is the owner of the adjacent real property described on Exhibit B attached hereto (the "PNGA Property"). OJe PNQr�( B. In order to (1) preserve and protect the'value of such properties, and (2) permit the . construction of buildings falling under the "Unlimited' category+ (as that term_is used in the`City Of ;Tukwila Uniform Building Codc)on such properties b) ensuring the existence of a di tance-d[ not less than:sixty,fcet`(60) bcbdccn buildings,1' 3 and PNGA desire to impose the Restrictive Covenant ter torus in Section ;1(4.on those portions of the properties described on Exhibit C (the legal description of the restricted area for P-3 and Exhibit D (the legal description of the restricted arca for PNGA) (collectively, the "Restricted Areas "). The Restricted Areas are shown on Exhibit E (the drawing of the restricted arca for P.3) and Exhibit F (the drawing of the restricted area for PNGA). and the Restrictive Covenant with respect thereto is for the benefit of the P -3 Property and the PNGA Property. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual terms, covenant and conditions set forth in this Restrictive Covehant, and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, P -3 and PNGA hereby mutually agree and declare as follows: Restrictive Covenant. The P -3 Property and the PNGA Property are now held and shall be transferred, sold, encumbered, rented, leased, conveyed, used, and occupied subject to thc restriction that no building or other structure maybe constructed, placed or installed on the Restricted Areas. (b) Permitted Uses. This restrictive covenant will not prevent the construction of roadways, parking lots, sidewalks, gardens, landscaped areas, railroad tracks or underground utilities of any sort either upon, under or across the Restricted Areas. 2. A3odirication or Termination of Restrictive Covenant (a) Buildinc Code Chance. In the event that the City of Tukwila reduces or removes the OW Uniform Building Code requitement for a sixty foot (60) yard surrounding buildings falling under the "Unlimited" category, this Restrictive Covenant shall be deemed modified of terminated accordinely. 3. Miscellaneous (a) PRESENT OWNER OF THE PNGA PROPERTY: PACIFIC NORTHWEST GROUP A, 2 California joint venture 11' }IKCJI.GAVRESTRICT CLC - 2 - (b) Damage or Destruction of P Property Buildin. if the building contemplated to be built on the P -3 Property at the time this Restrictive Covenant is executed (1) is built substantially as planned, and (2) is thereafter damaged, destroyed or demolished, and (3) is not rebuilt or. restored within two years from the date of such damage, destruction or demolition, then this Restrictive Covenant will terminate and be of no further force or effect. Runs with Land. This Restrictive Covenant will run with the land and be binding upon all patties having any right, title, or interest in' the P -3 Property and the PNGA Property or any part thereof, their heirs, successors and assigns. (b) Applicable Ia%v Costs. This Restrictive Covenant will be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Washington. It is agreed that the venue CO of any legal action brought to enforce this Restrictive Covenant will be King County, Washington. In the event of any litigation to enforce or interpret the rights and O obligations set forth herein, the substantially prevailing party will be entitled to an award of reasonable costs, (=Tenses and attorneys' fees in connection therewith, at trial and on appeal. O (c) Counterparts. This Restrictive Covenant may be signed in any number of counterparts, all of which together shall be deemed to be one and the same document. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Restrictive Covenant on the date and year first above written. By: STATE OF CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Joint Venturer CALIFORNIA STATE TEACHERS' RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Joint Venturer By: Its: 119RIGAGE INVFS1W4 1a Runs with Land. This Restrictive Covenant will run with the land and be binding upon all parties having any right, title. or interest in the P -3 Property and thc PNGA Property or any part thereof, their heirs, successors and assigns. (b) Applicable Law; Costs. This Restrictive Covenant will be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Washington. It is agreed that the venue of any legal action brought to enforce this Restrictive Covenant will be King County, Washington. In the event or any litigation to enforce or interpret the rights and CZ obligations sct forth herein, the substantially prevailing party will be entitled to an award of reasonable costs, expenses and attomeys' fees in connection therewith, at trial and on appeal. n (c) Counterparts. This Restrictive Covenant may be signed in any number of counterparts, all of which together shall be deemed to be one and the same document. (b) Damaec or Destruction of P. Property Building. If the building contemplated to be built on the P -3 Property at thc time this Restrictive Covenant is executed (1) is built substantially as planneb, and (2) is thereafter damaged, destroyed or demolished, and (3) is not rebuilt or restored within two years from the date of such damage, destruction or demolition, then this Restrictive Covenant will terminate and be of no further force or effect. 3. Miscellaneous (a) IN WITNESS WHEREOF, thc parties hereto have executed this Restrictive Covenant on the date and year first above written. PRESENT OWNER OF THE PNGA PROPERTY: PACIFIC NORT1IWVEST GROUP A, a California joint venture By: STATE OF CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Joint Venturer 1.01f:Q.R:G IMES rNCT.c1e - 2 - By Its: CALIFORNIA STATE TEACHERS' RETIRE'•rENT SYSTEM. Joint Venturer PRESENT OWNER OF THE P -3 PROPERTY: STATE OF COUNTY OF I certify that I know person who appearedbef on oath stated that R.ETIREMEN YSTEM, purposes me toned in this 14 II ATED: 1 l'MKGVSGAP. S1P.JCT CLC ss. (Signature) - 3 - el Sandorffy, Manager P 3/PARKWAY L.L.C., a Washington limited liability company avc satisfactory evidence that is thc me, and said person acknowledged that signed this instrument, was authorized to execute thc instrument and aclnowledged it as the of STATE OF CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' to be thc free and voluntary act of such joint venturer for thc uses and instrument. (Please print name legibly) NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of residing at My commission expire State of Californla County of Sacramento ) WITNESS my hand and official seal: ss. On July 19 1995 , before me, Carol Lawson. Notary Public , personally appeared Roger Flanz , personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person whose name Is subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he executed the same in his authorized capacity, and that by his signature on the Instrument the person, or the entity on behalf of which the person acted, executed the Instrument. I' MARY E. A411f7 i COMA 10tee7e Notay 9 — CoI(cmfo 5 1A.00. Couury tib Ccrnm. typSt Avg AK 19. 1998 STATE OF CQ.Q+/rrino-a.. COUNTY OF Al Ae yn r t•.1ce rsex1tsrwer etc ) ) ss. 1 certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that E f/eed cf. 0J'4a4 is thc person who appeared before me, and said person acknowledged that e , " signed this instrument, on oath stated that 4d, was authorized to execute thc instrument and acknowledged it as thc (:V of CALIFORNIA STATE TEACHERS' RETIREMENT SYSTEM, to be the free and voluntary act of such joint venturer for the uses and purposes mentioned in this instrument DATED: 7 /7 /`..f (Signature) • (Please print name legibly) NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of CA- /4otn1lk residing at 7447 Fecvr R /dd .« My commission mires 4 / 4! Yd STATE OF WASHINGTON COUNTY OF KING DATED: 10dvl, 14 cc rscAvs.sma c LC - 5 - • (Signature) MarLt k - GQVI0( (Please print name legibly) NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Washington. residing at IZttn My commission expires Zf q 1 I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that MICHAEL SANDORFFY is the person who appeared before me, and said person acknowledged that he signed this instrument, on oath stated that he was authorized to execute the instrument and acknowledged k as the Manager of P- 3/PARKWAY LLC. to be the free and voluntary act of such parry for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION 262304 67 POR SE 1/40F SW 1/4 S`C 26 -23-04 & OF NE 1/4 OF NW 1/4 SE C 35 -23-04 - EEG NE COR 5D Nc 1/4 OF NW' 1/4 TH N 87 -45-57 W 48t05 F T TO W MGN SOUrHCENTER PARKWAY TH 5 11-59-33 £ 41.27 FT TH N 87 -45-5 7 W 210 FT TO TPCB TH CCNTG N 87 -45-57 W 1 FT TH S 42 -30-27 W 53 7.51 FT TAP ON A LN 19.5 FT SWLY OF C/L OF 19 FTWDE Fa ESTvfT TH N:-Y ALG A LN WCH.6 CCOOENTRtC & PLW SD C /L.ALG O WVE.TO RGT CENT rs2 BEAR L 3 N 48 -31-03 E RAD 429.78 FT ARC CST 43355 FT II-7W C/A 57 -47 -52 TH COt4TG ALG SD FLL LN N 18 -18 -55 E 50.03 FT TO S LN CF SO 5`C 26 TH S 67 -45 -57 E 20.10 FT TO C/L E)4STNG RR ES.1T TH N 16 -18 -55 E 164:6 FT TH ALG CURVE TO RGT RAD 66174 FT ARC DGT 1603 FT 1HRU C/A 15- 59-40 TH N 00 -19 -15 E 528.93 FT TH CCNTG ALG SD C/L ON CURVE TO RGT RAD 41028 FT ARC DUST 23928 FT TI-RU C/A 33 -24 -54 TH S 83 -51 -25 E34 .64 FT 1H 5 01 -08 -35 W 198.66 FT TH N 86 -40 -03 E 274.13 FT TO W tiN SOUT1 C LATER PARKWAY TH SLY ALG SO W N.GN CO CJRVE TO LPT CENTER BEAR NG N 85 -13-08 E RAD 991.37 FT ARC DST 40 FT 71-RU CIA 02 -18 42 TH S 85 - 12 - 11 W 182 FT TH S n - 59 - 33 E 26167 FT TH S 88 - 25 - 36 E 115.17 FT TH N 11 -59 -33 W 9174 FT TH S 86 -25 -36 E 66.85 FT TO W MGN SOUTHCENTER PARKWAY TH S 11 -59 -33 E 53116 FT TH N 87 -45 -57 W 210 FT TH S 11 -59 -33 E 235.54 FT TO TP03 LESS POR WIThr+V U P FR ESMT & AKA PARCEL 6 OF CITY Cf TUV/LA DORY LN ADJ NO ELA 8 -79 RECORDED 7208230752. EXHIBIT B • PARE" =.L B: A Faro= OF TIM S[JTfEZE'ST WARIER OF 57_L:iCH 26, ToWNEIMP 23 TIO1:034, RANGE 4 EAST, W.M., IN ICMC =NW, FilISFri2 IQ1, DESC=3 AS FOLT_CrrS: EIEMENNING AT THE SOME WARDER 03a1FR OF SAID SECTION 26; 13ff2tCE NORTH 87'45'57" WMT AIaG TIM SECTION L'lZIE A 017rAN= OF 481.05 FEET TV nI TICE WEST MARGIN OF S017D P1J88 Y; Q� ZfmrCE NOM! 11'59 '33" WMT ALCM SAID WEST MAP= A DISTAN= OF 725.43 CV A ECCIII <1RY hTIIi A TRACT a/IVE :0 BY DEeD. MT"2re D=ID UN= FITE NU 8912290659 O AND 'II'E TAE ronrr CF =VIM: I.1 THENCE CQraNti 27G 2a; 11'99 WEST AIENG SAID WMT MF`�ti OF S`7CTII "sL'7rt? N FARFUAY A DIST NCE OF 105.15 FFSI' TO A POINT OF A =WE: I` =ICE ALCM SAID CURVE TO 'III max NAV= A PADIU5 OF 991.37 FEET 1I A Q cENM.I. AI.siE' OF 4 AN AFC DISTANCE OF 84.78 1 To THE scurf: ra2IDAY OF L A ¢I'MrtJ CEIIVEFIAY EASEMENT (Fi1SII'i ►7r ND<' 3. AS DEEMED IN CIEZD P. cF 72DED U2J�Q FILE !MEER 8912290859); DICE LFATit SAID WEST MARGIN OF SC131HCE*71M EM MY, SOUIII 135'12 WEST A DIE NCE OF 182.00 FEZT: THENCE SOCTD3 11'59'33" EAST A DISTANCE OF 261.67 FET: 'HENCE SCUM 88'25'36^ E4lSr A DISTANCE OF 115.17 MI': 1304CE 1.MLi 11'59'33" WEST A =1V= OF 91.74 Fz�.T-' ; 13i ICE SQUIB 88'25'36" EMT A DLL T. NCE OF 66.85 FT. C 'SO TIC WEST 1W IN OF 5=3 E= PAIIIWAY AND THE POINT OF B d7Ttn. • EXHIBIT C 350 DUILD EASEMENT DESCRIPTION THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTIOt; 26, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W.M., IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: M. COMMENCING AT THE SOUTH QUARTER CORNER OP SAID SECTION 26, THENCE NORTH 87 °45'57" WEST 481.05 FEET ALONG TEE SOUTH LINE T=REO£ TO THE WEST MARGIN OF SOUTRCENTER PARKWAY; THENCE NORTH 11 WEST 725.43 FEET ALONG SAID WEST MARGIN TO A BOUNDARY WITHi A TRACT CONVEYED BY DEED RECORDED UNDEP. FILE NO. 8912290859 AND A POINT HEREINAFTER REF ERRED TO AS POINT "A "; THENCE CONTIZTUING.NORTH 11 °59'33" WEST 105.15 FEET ALONG SAID WEST MARGIN OF SOUTACENTER PARKWAY TO THE BEGINNING of A CARVE CoNC.VE EASTERLY HAVING A RADIUS OF 991.37 FEET; THENCE NORTHERLY 84.78 FEET ALONG SAID, CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE of 4 °53'59" TO THE SOUTH•BOUNDARY OF A C0z' ON DRIVEWAY EASEMENT (EASEMENT NUMBER 1 AS RESERVED IN DEED RECORDED UNDER FILE NO. 8912290859) AND THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE LEAVING SAID WEST MARGIN OF SOUTHCENTER PARKWAY, SOUTH H 85 WEST 182.00 FEET TO A LINE h'?_T_NAFTER REFERRED TO AS LINE "A" CD THENCE SOUTFI 11 °59'33" EAST 261.67 FEET ALONG SAID LINE "A" TO A N LINE HEREINAFTER R.EFERRM TO AS LINE "9 "; .✓�, � TT�NCE SOUTH 88 °25'36" EAST 115.17 FEET ALONG SAID LINE r. THENCE NORTH 11 °59'33" WEST 91.74 FEET TO A POINT WHICH BEARS NORTH O CD 88 °25'36" WeST FROM SAID POINT "A "•; �� �� THENCE SOUTH 68 °25'36" EAST 66.85 FEET TO SAID 'POINT "A"; THENCE SOUTH 11 ° 59'33" EAST 143.17 FEET ALONG SAID WEST MARGIN OF SOUTHC^..;TER PARKWAY TO THE EASTERLY PROLONGATION OF A LINE LYI:7G PARALLEL WITH AND 50.00 FEET SOUTHERLY OF SAID LINE "B ", AS MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES TEERETO; THENCE NORTH 88.25'36" WEST 233.45 FEET ALONG SAID EASTERLY PROLONGATION, SAID PARALLEL LINE AND THE WESTERLY PROLONGATION THEREOF TO THE SOUTHERLY PROLONGATION OF A LINE LYING PARALLEL WITH AND 50.00 FEET WESTERLY OF SAID LINE "A ", AS MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES 't: t.: ETO; THENCE NORTH .11 °59'33" WEST 96.26 FEET ALONG SAID SOUTE I Y PROLONGATION AND LAST SAID PARALLEL LINE; THENCE NORTH 02 °22'40" EAST 57.82 FEET; T.- ;E.''ICE NORTH 87•37 WEST 14.81 FEET TO LAST SAID PARALLEL LINE; THENCE NORTH 11 °59'33" WEST 197.63 FEET ALONG LAST SAID PARALLEL LINE AND ITS NORTHERLY PROLONGATION TO THE w'ESTEp.LY PROLONGATION OF TEE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID COMMON DRIVEWAY EASEMENT; THENCE SOUTH 86 °40'03" EAST 237.49 FEET ALONG LAST SAID WESTERLY PROLONGATION AND NORTHERLY LINE TO SAID WEST MARGIN OF SOUTHCENT PARKWAY AND THE BEGINNING OF A NON- TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE EASTERLY HAVING . A RADIUS OF 991.37 FEET (A RADIAL LINE THROUGH SAID BEGINNING BEARS SOUTH 85 °13'08" WEST); AND CCRVE THENCE SOUTHERLY 40.00 THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 02 ° 18' 42 " TO THE TRUE P OF BEGINNNING. SITUATE IN THE CITY OF TUKWILA, }KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. morrON VILLAGE ASSOCEATE5 PARR PLACE • WILLIAM A. BICKOX, P.L.S. BP.H JOB NO. 94167 APRIL 3, 1995 BUSK. ROED & HITCi1NGS. INC. No BUirD EASEMENT DESCFIPTION THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION It7GTO 26, TOWNSHP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W.M., IN KING COUNTY, DESCRIBED A FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE SOUTH QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 26, THENCE NORTH 87 9 45'57" WEST 481.05 FEET ALONG THE SOUTH LINE THEREOF TO THE WEST MARGIN OF SOUTHCENTER PARKWAY; THENCE BOUNDARY WITH A. TRACT CONVEYED ALONG TO BY DEED UNDER FI FILE A . 8912290859; THENCE CONTIr7UING NORTH 11 °59'33" WEST 105.15 FEET ALONG SAID WEST MARGIN OF SOUTHCENTER PARKWAY TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE CONCAVE EASTERLY HAVING A RADIUS OF 991.37 FEET; THENCE NORTHERLY 84 .78 FEET ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A cENTPJ,L ANGLE OF 4 °53'59" TO THE SOUTH BOUNDARY OF A COMMON DRIVEWAY EAS1: "r (EASEM NT NUMBER 1 AS RESERVED IN DEED RECORDED UNDER FILE NO. 8912290859); SOUTHCENTER PARKWAY, SOUTH THENCE LEAVING SAID WEST MARGIN OF 85 °12'11" WEST 182.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 11 °59'33" EAST 251.38 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT. OF BEGINNING; THENCE NORTH 02 °22'40" EAST 90.55 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE CONCAVE NORTHEASTERLY HAVING A RADIUS OF 60.00 FEET; THENCE NORTHERLY AND NORTHWESTERLY 71.12 FEET ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 67'55'01" TO A POINT WHICH BEARS NORTH 11 °59'23" WEST FROM THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; Ti!ENCE SOUTH 11 °59'33" EAST 150.67 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. SITUATE IN THE CIT_ OF TUKWILA, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. 3-3-$15 EXHIBIT D RENTON VILLAGE ASSOCIATES PARK PLACE WINNERS PARCEL WILLIAM A. HICICOX, P.L.S. BRA JOB NO. 94187 MARCH 31, 1995 BUSH. ROED L- HITCHINGS, INC. EXHIBIT E Kit) rJ Mil lA Ease' ak s 1 J ` 5.5e.'2.6'sbt ` P • R SI IV I I tO b8Z- l04o P PM ill N$7' ;7'zo "W r4.ei 1 - 1\10 5e 45610'03 "4. Z37.4)' C tx,,r 691179o q. 85 ., 11.11 "'n / t &Z.oc .W ro l - ( 04.5 f'\ � .Nat 4 o - Ls' _ It .17• N 23;.x(5' post -It Fw Note TPo5 3 7' �110f[N � in m �tn,c ,Oij le e as .te �r ul I a � w o. o +r: ten �S E1'[0 ;IN k1 kd Rtkll Il J1 ( 14 1161 3 1g i 1 • wIN NggS g AiI g N T NO BUILD BASEMENT DIAGRAM PROJECT: PARK PLACE 2/10/05 SCALE: r - wd -0" 10: ROY WWII 9507210292 1 1 _ ; I vary S 59- 3 }. TURNER & ASSOCIATES 420 241h Place RE. 5eallla WA 9665 ARCHITECTS 51 E1CH 005 AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP AND HOLD HARMLESS PERMISSION TO ENTER PROPERTY STATE OF WASHINGTON ss COUNTY OF KING CITY OF TUKWILA Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 Telephone: (206) 431 -3670 FAX (206) 431 - 3665 E tukplan @ci.tukwila.wa.us The undersigned being duly swom and upon oath states as follows: 1. I am the current owner of the property which is the subject of this application. 2. All statements contained in the applications have been prepared by me or my agents and are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. 3. The application is being submitted with my knowledge and consent. 4. Owner grants the City, its employees, agents, engineers, contractors or other representatives the right to enter upon Owner's real property, located at /7 V I Seto hr root fr r rz'/CWG ). , Td & w, /. r Gv,¢ for the purpose of application review, for the limited time necessary to complete that purpose. 5. Owner agrees to hold the City harmless for any loss or damage to persons or property occurring on the private property during the City's entry upon the property, unless the loss or damage is the result of the sole negligence of the City. 6. The City shall, at its discretion , cancel the application without refund of fees, if the applicant does not respond to specific requests for items on the "Complete Application Checklist" within ninety (90) days: 7. Non - responsiveness to a City information request for ninety (90) or more days, shall be cause to cancel the application(s) without refund of fees. EXECUTED at &A Bk (city), WA- (state), on �i/rtQ 7 , 20 O y A ra Deckei (Print Name) i 17 Z30 Se N /e tJ4 'boot (Signature) On this day personally appeared before me D��1{� to me known to be the individual who executed the foregoing instrument and acknowledged that he /she signed the same as his/her voluntary act and deed for the uses and purposes mentioned therein. DAY OF �1 �'h . 20 SUBSCRIBED X11 WN TO BEFORE ME 1 ' • " • Residi at My Commission expires on (Phone Number) (Address) Z.0 `7` qr the Slateof Washington 9/9 RECEIVED ►JUN 0 9 2004 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT (a LITHO/VIA LIGHT/AID" FEATURES & SPECIFICATIONS INTENDED USE — Outdoor storage areas, warehouse and factory perim- eters and loading docks. CONSTRUCTION — Rugged, corrosion resistant, die - cast aluminum. Corro- sion resistant external hardware includes slotted hex -head fasteners. FINISH — Standard finish is electrostatically - applied, oven - cured, dark bronze (DDB) corrosion - resistant polyester powder paint. OPTICAL SYSTEM — Reflector is specular anodized aluminum. Refractor is prismatic borosilicate glass which is sealed and gasketed to inhibit the entrance of outside contaminants. ELECTRICAL SYSTEM — High power factor, constant - wattage autotrans- former. Ballast is copper -wound and 100% factory- tested. Meets ANSI standards and is UL listed. Electrical components are mounted in hinged front cover that includes primary and secondary electrical dis- connect (For 50 hertz availability, consult factory). Porcelain, horizontally- oriented, medium base socket for 100 -150W and mogul -base socket for 175W and above, with copper alloy, nickel - plated screw shell and center contact UL listed 1500W, 600V. INSTALLATION — Back housing is separated from front housing, eliminat- ing ballast weight and promoting easy handling. Top 3/4" threaded wir- ing access. Back access through removable 3/4" knockout. Feed -thru wiring can be achieved by using a condulet tee. Mount on any vertical surface. Not recommended in applications where a sprayed stream of water can come in direct contact with glass lens. LISTING — UL Listed (standard). CSA or NOM Certified Isee Options). UL listed suitable for wet locations. IP65 rated (250 watt and below) or IP54 rated (400 watt) in accordance with IEC Standard 529. ORDERING INFORMATION Choose the boldface catalog nomenclature that best suits your needs and write it on the appropriate line. Order accessories as separate catalog numbers (shipped separately). Outdoor TWH (Series TWH Wattage /lamp 100M'" 150M 175M 200M' 250M 320M 350M 400Mz" NOTES: 1 Not available 480V & TB. 2 Maybe ordered with SCWA. 3 Must be ordered with SCWA. 4 Requires T -15, ED or BT28 reduced jacket Tamp. 5 Not available in Canada. 6 Optional multi -tap ballast (120, 208, 240, 277V). (120, 277, 347V in Canada). 7 Not available with multi -tap ballast. 8 Lamp not included. 9 Quartz lamp wattage not to exceed ballast wattage rating. 10 Black finish only. 11 Photocell not included. 12 Requires modification. 13 Optional 5-tap ballast (120,208,240,277,480V) 14 Not available with TBV. Voltage I 120 208 240 277 347 480 TB TBV" SF DF EC QRS CR CRT PE PER LPI L/LP LS TP FS WG VG SCWA CSA Shipped Installed In Fixture Single fuse (120, 277, 347V) Double fuse (208, 240, 480V) Emergency circuit Quartz restrike system"' Enhanced corrosion resistance Non -stick protective coating Photoelectric cell - button type" NEMA twist -lock receptacle" Lamp included as standard Less lamp Lamp support (mogul socket only) Tamper proof latches Full shield Wireguard (shipped separately) Vandal guard (shipped separately) Super SCWA Pulse Start Ballast CSA Certified" Catalog Number Notes Type METAL HALIDE 100W, 150W, 175W, 200W, 250W, 320W, 350W, 400W 8' to 25' Mounting Options RK1 PEB1 RK1 PEB2 RK1 PEB3 PE1 PE3 PE4 PE7 Height: 15 -3/4" (40cm) Width: 16 -1/4" (42.6cm) Depth: 8" (20.3cm) Weight: 26 -42 lbs. (12 -19 kg) Example: TWH 175M 120 LPI NOM NOM Certified (consult factory) Architectural Colors (optional) DNA Natural aluminum BBL Black DSB Steel blue OMB Medium bronze DGC Charcoal gray DTG Tennis green DBR Bright red DSS Sandstone DWH White Accessories Wall-Paks TWH 1 N 3 Wd013/00 MINf1WW00 1700 0 J(lb a3At3o3U Order as separate catalog number. Photoelectric control kit (120V, button type) Photoelectric control kit (120V, button type) Photoelectric control kit (347V, button type) NEMA twist -lock photocontrol (120V/208V/240V) NEMA twist -lock photocontrol (347V) NEMA twist -lock photocontrol (480V) NEMA twist -lock photocontrol (277V) Sheet #:TWH -M BM -200 TWH Metal Halide WaII -Paks Coefficient of Utilization Initial Footcandles TWH 250M Test report no. 95011902 2 4 2 3 4 5 a unummi !Irmo= *am= PRIPEINEfill grapluit 1 Coefficients of utilization 2 3 4 5 6 Distance in units of mounting height 250W, metal halide lamp, horizontal lamp ori- entation, 12' mounting height, 20,500 rated lumens. Total fixture efficiency 76.9% TWH 175M Test report no. 94121101 Coefficients of utilization 0 1 2 3 4 5 4 MEM MEM riveram Distance in units of mounting height 175W, metal halide lamp, horizontal lamp ori- entation, 12' mounting height, 14,000 rated lu- mens. Total fixture efficiency 60.6% Note: 1 Photometric data for other distributions can be accessed from the Lithonia Lighting website. Iwww.lithonia.com) er. LITHO/WA L /GHT /NG® mar An S�4cultyBrands Company Sheet #:TWH -M ©1989 Acuity Lighting Group, Inc., Rev.11/03 TWH -M.p65 TVVH 400M Test report no. 94112102 Coefficients of utilization Distance in units of mounting height 400W, metal halide, E -18 lamp, horizontal lamp orientation, 12' mounting height, 36,000 rated lu- mens. Total fixture efficiency: 70% Mounting Height Correction Factor (Multiply the fc level by the correction factor) 15 ft. =.64 20 ft. =.36 25 ft. =.23 Existing Mounting Height ) Correction Factor New Mounting Height / Lithonia Lighting Acuity Lighting Group, Inc. Outdoor Lighting One Lithonia Way, Conyers, GA30012 Phone:770- 922 -9000 Fax:770 -918 -1209 In Canada: 160 avenue Labrosse, Point - Claire, P.Q., H9R 1A1 www.lithonia.com Seovrik . Stosoam - witz t16'01;r01 --1-014A54_ lu, •6 vel- -t/0,47.m oF. 1 001,1 1 owd- t4" 4 12:117 1 44— , r) 401 *ket4-450-itzet- PAPut-koo 444-iitoc. -3.1 11 03VS -404 REFRIG REFRI Va- 47112; 3 H -4 :: 03VS -473 03VS -47 "f6''rl� 4 l.PPEiIZOCib•H UPPER 3 ABOVE cR UPPER 36'H UPPER as 36 H 36'H u' ABM' 11 PANEL ABOVE ABOVE PANEL ABOVE ABOVE D ABOVE ABOVE 21 ' R_s CEIVED JAN 31 2006 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DERO Bike Rack Co. : Classic 1':ke Storage - Rolling Rack Products and Info for: ',AII Products ',Home Storage ',Vehicles ',Small Businesses ',Architects ',School /University ©Property Managers IlCustom Racks ',Company Info ',Contact Us ',Policies ',Help /FAQ S�Yi�avlr.a,ir� Bike Parking Resources: ',News ',European Racks ',Funky Racks ',Security Issues ',Bike Parking Guidelines ',Links 10/26/2004 f3)ack Rolling Rack re More Images » Features: • Attractive Design • Accomodates single and double sided parking • In- ground and surace mounted • Various sizes available • Easy Installation Innovative Bicycle Storage Racks toll free: 888- 337 -6729 email: E; yr,s4: Wrev:i:Iiiiii The graceful design and high security of the Rolling Rack has made this type of bike rack a standard for many schools and communities. The Rolling Rack can be used as a single - sided or double -sided parking bike rack. The Rolling Rack can be ordered for in ground or foot mounted installation. This rack uses thick pipe construction and allows for one of the wheels and frame to be secured using a u -style bike lock Page 1 of 1 Please contact us for pricing and order information. ', Download Rolling Rack Brochure 0 See Finish Options arks a eiKes NOTE: PROVIDE SOLID BLOCKING/BACKING FOR ANCHORS. Famous Footwear O SIGN DETAIL SCALE: 1 1/2 " =1' -0" 3.0 SQUARE FEET XTERIOR WALL 3' 0" NOTE: ANCHORS TO BE SEALED IN FULL BED OF SIUCONE CAULK TO PREVENT WATER PENETRATION (TYPICAL) SPECIFICATIONS: ONE (1) DOUBLE FACE, NON - ILLUMINATED BLADE SIGN. ALUMINUM SIDES AND FACES OVER INTERNAL ANGLE, ALL WELDED FRAME. COPY AND LOGO TO BE ROUTED OUT OF FACES AND TO HAVE' /: "PUSH THRU WHITE -PLEX LETTERS. CABINET FINISH TO MATCH CATSKILL BROWN Sw1077. 3/4" BORDER TO BE PREMIUM WHITE VINYL. MOUNTING BRACKET TO BE 2" DIA. ALUMINUM PIPE AND HAVE 4" DIA. END CAR PIPE TO BE WELDED TO 6" DIA. X 1/4" THICK MOUNTING PLATE. FINISH TO MATCH CATSKILL BROWN Sw1077 1" DIA. ALUMINUM HANGING SUPPORTS TO MATCH CATSKILL BROWN Sw1077. FOUR (4) NON - CORROSIVE ANCHOR BOLTS (TYPE AND SIZE TO BE DETERMINED BY WALL CONSTRUCTION. LANDLORD APPROVAL ❑ APPROVED ❑ APPROVED AS NOTED ❑ REVISE AND RESUBMIT Signature* Title. Date* ❑ APPROVED OF FULL SCALE PATTERN REQUESTED AT I.S. 8 D FACILITY PRIOR TO FABRICATION. Landlord's signature (above) acknowledges all specifications and dimensions as understood and correct. © INTERNATIONAL SIGN Et DESIGN — tili u u111 4 z _ tn gul cc 1—D Z En 3!1 Famous Footwear SPECIFICATIONS: TWO (2) NEW SETS OF WINDOW VINYL. ALL VINYL TO BE 3M #210 -314 D CRYSTAL APPLIED TO SECOND SURFACE OF GLASS. WINDOW VINYL HERE. CENTER IN WINDOW HORIZONTALLY & 30" OFF THE FINISHED FLOOR. it • i) =MN_ IVA" MU/NN MOM MUM_ _ 1 1 11 P1 1 luau •B. ® SOUTH ELEVATION 2 SCALE: 3/32 " =1'•0" LANDLORD APPROVAL ❑ APPROVED ❑ APPROVED AS NOTED ❑ REVISE AND RESUBMIT Signature' Title' Date. ❑ APPROVED OF FULL SCALE PATTERN REQUESTED AT I.S. & D FACILITY PRIOR TO FABRICATION. Landlord's signature (above) acknowledges all specifications and dimensions as understood and correct. © INTERNATIONAL SIGN & DESIGN Sit OK ;3 / '1 - I -5')J- 5/4 x,03 4 6 q, 1s,s„Any. f;NEAST ELEVATION SCALE: 3/32 " =1' -0" CODE L X H IS 501 -1500 CODE IS L x H - 500 x .04 + 25 = ALLOWABLE SQ. FT L X H IS 1501 -3000 CODE IS L x H - I500 .03 + 65 = ALLOWABLE SQ. FT 3132.23 2632.23 x .03 = 78.97 + 65 = 143.97 ALLOWABLE SQ. FT. INTEGRAL EIFS THROUGH COLOR TO MATCH SHERWIN WILUAMS, SW2166 COFFEE . EIFS THROUGH COLOR TO BE BY LANDLORD. 94' -11" LANDLORD APPROVAL ❑APPROVED ❑ APPROVED AS NOTED D REVISE AND RESUBMIT Signature' Title' Date' ❑ APPROVED OF FULL SCALE PATTERN REQUESTED AT I.S. 8 D FACILITY PRIOR TO FABRICATION. Landlord's signature (above) acknowledges all specifications and dimensions as understood and correct. ® INTERNATIONAL SIGN Et DESIGN DESCRIPTION ALUMINUM RETURNS AND BACKS, FINISH TO BE WHITE. INSIDE OFLETTERSTO BE WHITE. 1" WHITE TRIM -CAR 1/8" WHITE PLEX FACES. 15 MM 6500 WHITE NEON. DOUBLE BACK ELECTRODES WITH U.L. APPROVED ELECTRODE BOOTS AND 15000 VOLT GTO WIRE. STANDARD TUBE SUPPORTS. 1/4" WEEP HOLES AS REQUIRED. MOUNTING HARDWARE (TYPE DEPENDS ON WALL CONSTRUCTION). 1/2 FLEX CONDUIT. 30 M.A. NORMAL POWER FACTOR TRANSFORMERS (GROUND FAULT PROTECTED AND 2161 U.L. APPROVED). 20 AMP. DISCONNECT SWITCH. PRIMARY ELECTRICAL LEADS. METAL TRANSFORMER BOXES. NEM U1.2111 D.F.P. SIGN TRANSFORMER REQUIRE NAT ALL CIRCUITS MUST HAIN DEDICATEI NOT. MITOAL GROUND TERMINATING AT PANEL SIGH MOST SE GRROROEO M COINUANCE NMI v 7 N 0 I � NEW POLE UOFLT JOANN FABRIC PEAKS TOP 7 E10ST. PKG. — OF BUT USEABLE BORDERS BOOKSTORE MST. PSRN&T ELM . 312 NEW POLE UGHT S 88'51•25" E 1 MATCH LANDSCAPE ACROSS ESMT. DR. 1 1 1p L%) % 7 1 1 N 1 1 '2 1 2 1 1 ELM SAB ELEV. . 20$ TCH IANDSCWE ROSS ESMT. DR I Oonnd ■ SITE CROSS- SCTION 27 .3B' COMMON ACCESS DRIVE ESMT. LOCATED AND GROUND SCREEN BE TO MINI THEIR NOISY. P — APPEARANCE IN THE LANDSCAPE. NOT A PAM RT OF PROPERTY BUT USEABLE A -A PARNINVORIVE LONDEOPE Ls.3BsT SOUDICENTIN PRIEST EI P AC CH AR � CENTER FLUSH W/ COST. PAVEMENT (3/A1.1) MONO 1 1 1 1 1 1 p EXIST. F.H. 1 n 1 1 1 - 0 � 1 - 73 L VICINITY MAP SC -3 RETAIL BUILDING SITE AREA: 47,694sf BLDG. AREA: 16,787sf ON SITE PARKING: 90 CARS LANDSCAPE AREA: 4,774sf ± i u AA' Kr a 1 SITE PLAN 1.= 2C-0" 1 1 17401 SOUTHCENTER PARKWAY 1 NOTES: 1 0 1. PYLON SIGN SUBJECT TO SIGN CODE. 1 2. HEIGHT OF PYLON SIGN . NOT TO EXCEED 30' A.F.G. 1 3. SITE LIGHTING 9 BOLLARD LIGHTS © 100W EACH = 900W 5NTs 1 1 7 POLE MOUNTED SHOE BOX LIGHTS @I 400W EACH = 2,800W 1 TOTAL WATTS = 4,100W 1 4. MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE WATTS © 0.20W /SF = 5,476W 1 1 LANDSCAPE CALCULATIONS: 1 15' PERIMETER LS REQUIRED = 2,255s.f. 1 PERIMETER LS SHOWN = 2,576s.f. 1 PARKING LS REQUIRED IN FRONT /SIDE = 72 STALLS x 15s.f. = 1,080s.f. 1 PARKING LS SHOWN = 1,461sf 1 (NOT INCLUDING 15' FRONT YD. LANDSCAPING) 1 PARKING LS REQUIRED IN REAR = 18 STALLS x 10s.f. = 180s.f. 1 PARKING LS SHOWN = 737s.f. 1 TOTAL LANDSCAPE REQUIRED = 4,453s.f. 1 1 TOTAL LANDSCAPE SHOWN = 4,774s.f. 1 1 1 1 LEGEND 1 D— WALL MID. UP /DOWN ARCH. PATHWAY LIGHT 0-0 SITE POLE UGHT \ ❑ TRASH RECEPDCLE 1 MO BENCH + 1 \ ® LANDSCAPE PLANTER 1 \ BOLLARD LIGHT 1 1 1 m BIKE RACK 1 1 1 \ \ 1 1 1 1 1 \ 1 l slop SO l' 8 g N UOISIABJ lumens yna3d , --- 61 •ou clot' oco -so UMDJp Xld checked slop KRUM 'd 3314I1 034315103H ea SC -3 RETAIL BUILDING 17401 SOUTHCENTER PARKWAY TUKWILA, WASHINGTON N V l d 3 1 1 S' _ANCE MUELLER & ASSOCIATES sheet A1.OR v 7 N 0 I � NEW POLE UOFLT JOANN FABRIC PEAKS TOP 7 E10ST. PKG. — OF BUT USEABLE BORDERS BOOKSTORE MST. PSRN&T ELM . 312 NEW POLE UGHT S 88'51•25" E 1 MATCH LANDSCAPE ACROSS ESMT. DR. 1 1 1p L%) % 7 1 1 N 1 1 '2 1 2 1 1 ELM SAB ELEV. . 20$ TCH IANDSCWE ROSS ESMT. DR I Oonnd ■ SITE CROSS- SCTION 27 .3B' COMMON ACCESS DRIVE ESMT. LOCATED AND GROUND SCREEN BE TO MINI THEIR NOISY. P — APPEARANCE IN THE LANDSCAPE. NOT A PAM RT OF PROPERTY BUT USEABLE A -A PARNINVORIVE LONDEOPE Ls.3BsT SOUDICENTIN PRIEST EI P AC CH AR � CENTER FLUSH W/ COST. PAVEMENT (3/A1.1) MONO 1 1 1 1 1 1 p EXIST. F.H. 1 n 1 1 1 - 0 � 1 - 73 L VICINITY MAP SC -3 RETAIL BUILDING SITE AREA: 47,694sf BLDG. AREA: 16,787sf ON SITE PARKING: 90 CARS LANDSCAPE AREA: 4,774sf ± i u AA' Kr a 1 SITE PLAN 1.= 2C-0" 1 1 17401 SOUTHCENTER PARKWAY 1 NOTES: 1 0 1. PYLON SIGN SUBJECT TO SIGN CODE. 1 2. HEIGHT OF PYLON SIGN . NOT TO EXCEED 30' A.F.G. 1 3. SITE LIGHTING 9 BOLLARD LIGHTS © 100W EACH = 900W 5NTs 1 1 7 POLE MOUNTED SHOE BOX LIGHTS @I 400W EACH = 2,800W 1 TOTAL WATTS = 4,100W 1 4. MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE WATTS © 0.20W /SF = 5,476W 1 1 LANDSCAPE CALCULATIONS: 1 15' PERIMETER LS REQUIRED = 2,255s.f. 1 PERIMETER LS SHOWN = 2,576s.f. 1 PARKING LS REQUIRED IN FRONT /SIDE = 72 STALLS x 15s.f. = 1,080s.f. 1 PARKING LS SHOWN = 1,461sf 1 (NOT INCLUDING 15' FRONT YD. LANDSCAPING) 1 PARKING LS REQUIRED IN REAR = 18 STALLS x 10s.f. = 180s.f. 1 PARKING LS SHOWN = 737s.f. 1 TOTAL LANDSCAPE REQUIRED = 4,453s.f. 1 1 TOTAL LANDSCAPE SHOWN = 4,774s.f. 1 1 1 1 LEGEND 1 D— WALL MID. UP /DOWN ARCH. PATHWAY LIGHT 0-0 SITE POLE UGHT \ ❑ TRASH RECEPDCLE 1 MO BENCH + 1 \ ® LANDSCAPE PLANTER 1 \ BOLLARD LIGHT 1 1 1 m BIKE RACK 1 1 1 \ \ 1 1 1 1 1 \ 1 ,,l,, 11, 11 (:11it i;ti ' API „,CNECNCpSHing PpiDDt[111” J ``V--- ' ' .. ___ 1 ..., L-`.. NU -RAY METAL PRODUCTS, INC (800) 700 -7338 26GA MOSS GREEN NU -RAY METAL PRODUCTS, INC. (800) 700-7228 24GA CLASSIC GREEN