HomeMy WebLinkAboutPermit L94-0012 - FADDEN ROBERT - GT DEVELOPMENT PARKING AND LANDSCAPE DESIGN REVIEWL94 -0012
Gt DEVELOPMENT design review
eview — E02 -020
If Course Clubhouse
,nmaaaact
un5 ."stt:Le"ttigd".rE'04- 4gtr.,;`, ?"aaViLE..`w`kitr YS t3ira
Steven M. Mullet, Mayor
clubl ouse ?O 'o fi m�aster, Director
docume y 6pr n l n n prior to demolition
of the structures and removal of the trees.
4. Green River Trail users must be notified when construction activities will
disrupt Trail usage along Interurban Avenue South. Notification shall include
posting the Trail at least one week prior to any closure or rerouting of the trail,
and notifying user groups by mail at least one week in advance.
c: \mydocs \Foster Golf Course\sepa -rpt
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 .• Tukwila, Washington 98188.
Phone :. 206- 431 -3670 _ •: Fax: 206- 431 -3665 ;;
City of Tukwila
Department of Community Development
October 24, 1994
Mr. Bob Fadden • ••
Lance Mueller & Associates
130 Lakeside, Suite 250
Seattle, Washington 98122
Dear Bob:
• John W. Rants, Mayor
Rick Beeler, Director
The following is an outline of what we need from you, and some things you should be aware of, if we are to
keep this project application active. I have noted the status of applications and permits that require planning
approval. For the status of applications that require Public Works Department approval, you need to check
with Phil Fraser or John Pierog of the Public Works Department. .
1. You have received a Mitigated Determination of Non - significance for this project under. the State
Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). You have also received approval for the project by Tukwila Board
of Architectural Review. Please note that if you intend to alter the site plan significantly, you will
need to re -visit these processes.
2. You have not been issued a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit by the City. In response to
your question of August 19, 1994, a street vacation is necessary before your shoreline permit can be
issued. This is because the shoreline permit application assumes a site plan that, in turn, assumes a
street vacation.. If you want to revise your site plan such that you aren't using the vacated street for
circulation, parking, flood storage and a bioswale, you could do that and receive your shoreline permit
before the street vacation is complete, provided you fulfill all other applicable code. requirements.
3. The status of the street vacation is that an ordinance for the vacation must be written and approved
by,the City Council. Please provide awritten request to the City Cleark that indicatesyour . intent to
continue or terminate the pending street vacation.
•
4. You must have your Flood Control Zone Permit (FCZP) before.you can receive your building permit.
The FCZP can be issued in two phases; Phase One FCZP for shoreline improvements and Phase Two
FCZP at the time of building permit application.
5. You must have your Substantial Shoreline Development Permit before you can receive your building
permit. In addition to the street vacation, you must have your Phase One Flood Control Zone Permit
before you can receive this permit. The following information must be complete and the drawings
reflect these conditions where applicable before the shoreline permit can be issued. Please contact
Phil Fraser if you have any questions on these items.
a. Plans must include riverbank stabilization measures to assure riverbank protection. We have
received your letter from Earth Consultants Inc. It addresses erosion control measures during
construction, and says that, "If possible, the ground surface at the top of slope should be
• sloped away from the bank in order to further reduce surface flow over the slope." In
addition to these safeguards, the slope on the water side of the levy needs to be altered to
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • •Fax (206) 431-3665
reflect a 2:1 slope. We look forward to seeing the landscape plan for the bank. Finally, we
need a statement from your geotech that bank stabilization measures will provide protection
for the development for the life of the project, with normal maintenance.
b. The landscape and planting plan must be completed in accordance with King County
Riverbank Stabilization Guidelines.
c. The trail/dike maintenance /fire access easement must extend from the catch point original
ground to easterly property line.
d. An access easement from S. 144th Street to trail/levy for public use must be shown.
e. Flood storage calculations for a 7 day /100 year flood must be included in re- submittal.
f. Provide a hydraulic analysis that assumes that the capacity of down stream pipes (to river),
used by the development, is not exceeded for 25 year/24 hour storm, in accordance with King
County Surface Water Design Manual.
g.
You must obtain Hydraulic Permit Approval from Washington State Fish and Wildlife.
6. A lot consolidation needs to be completed before a building permit can be issued.
7. It is possible for you to submit your utility permit applications shortly before you start construction,
as they do not take long to process.
8. The building requires a certificate of elevation.
Once your Shoreline Substantial Development permit is approved it can be revised under the conditions
outlined in the attached (WAC 173 -14 -064). Please note that these revisions must meet the following criteria:
o They cannot result in greater than a 10% increase in ground area coverage or the height of the
building from the original submittal;
o They cannot exceed height, lot coverage or setbacks or other provisions of the master permit .
authorized under the original permit;
o Landscaping must be consistent with conditions of original permit; and,
o No adverse environmental impact can result from changes.
In response to your question in our meeting of August 18, 1994, it would appear that a building permit will
not vest your shoreline permit (see attached WAC 173 -14 -060), although there are other actions you could
take that would demonstrate "substantial progress
We would like you to provide us with a plan of action for this project that includes the permits you intend
to apply for, in what sequence, and in what time frames. This will assure us that you have an understanding
of the requirements, and allow us to anticipate when we need to respond to your requests.
Please give me a call if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
.---t3r7
Diana Painter, AICP
Associate Planner
Bob McGarvey, GT Development
Duane Griffin, Building Official
Bob Benedicto, Senior Plans Checker
Ron Cameron, City Engineer
Phil Fraser, Senior Engineer
Brian Shelton, Senior Engineer
John Pierog, Associate Engineer
Jack Pace, Senior Planner
Attachments:
_,..i....`•1�::....�R`e,..; t.*r`. -��`�. �...��.., .; �� [ il^", 5%; is�. �s= s�, �•'' rV:;'.`. i' t* i; �: G�: ,`•cYE;^'�xtr3ET1C�uinr�t�'±�Sh �7!iixf,}.'.'�`,Y�;.?aik
May 11, 1994 letter from Ron Cameron to Diana Painter
' August 18,• 1994 meeting notes
Washington Administrative Code 173 -14-060
- ---�'J 1' L1
To: Diana Painter, Planning a_', ion
From: Ron Cameron, via Phil Traser, Senior Engineer
Date: May 11, 1994
Subject: GT Development
6437 S 144 St
Project No. PRE93 -022
SEPA Review Comments •
The above project was reviewed for SEPA at a special 5/10/94
meeting of the Public Works plan review meeting. The following
are our specific comments:
I. TRAFFIC: Interurban /I405. The improvement costs at this
location total over $13,000,000 and complexity of weaving
traffic would result in prorated shares exceeding
$5,000 /trip. It has been previously determined to use
a "fair share" of $1,000 /trip with increase traffic at this
location. GT Development's 16 peak hour trips mitigation
is $16,000.
III. PUBLIC WORKS PERMITS:
A. Land Altering - earthwork quantities for cut/
excavation, fill /backfill and haul need to be
indicated on the development plans.
B. Flood Control Zone
1.] Riverbank stabilization study required
2.] Use NGV datum; show lowest floor elevations
3.] All lowest floor elevations to be minimum of
2 •feet higher than standard project flood if
levee /dike system does not protect the property;
if a levee /dike system does protect the property
minimum lowest floor elevation is one foot above
standard project flood elevation.
4.] Provide trail/riverbank/dike easement in accordance
with agreement with Department of Parks and
Recreation.
Page 2
C
C
C. Drainage (Analysis)
The May 5, 1994 faxed GT Development revised storm
drainage narrative (attached), Page 1, "Proposed Drainage
System ", last sentence - identifies "storage" based on
100 yr /24 hour storm event. Request drainage design
applies criteria identified in King County Surface Water
Design Manual under CORE REQUIREMENT #3 (Section 1.2.3 -
Peak Rate Runoff Control Performance) and includes
consideration of 100 yr /7 day event for all new
impervious surfaces (roofs as well as vehicular) -
for river storage calculations.
Also, compensatory storage to be provided as part of the
GT development design in accordance with King County's
Flood Hazard Reduction Plan Policy FP -4 which states:
"For structures and fill placed in the floodplain
should be compensated for by excavation of equivalent
volumes at equivalent elevations" (See Figure 10
attached).
D. Utilities -
1.] Water - Improvements will need to be in compliance
with the city's adopted Comprehensive Water Plan
(1993) & will require installation of a new 10"
main in Interurban /Maule Ave S R /W's replacing the
existing 2" main.
2.] Sewer - Improvements will need to be in compliance
with the city's adopted Comprehensive Sewer Plan
(1993).
3.] Street Use -
o Channelization required on Interurban Ave S.
in accordinance with the Interurban Ave Plan.
o Frontal improvements required on both
Interurban Ave S and S 144 St in accordinance
with the Ordinance #1516 and the Interurban
Ave Plan (Entranco).
o Private driveways (25' - 35'maximum)
E. Landscape Irrigation - drought tolerant plantings
are encouraged. If permanent irrigation plumbing
is installed, a conservation system shall be. utilized.
Please let me know if you have any questions concerning the
above.
cf: Ron Cameron, City Engineer
John Pierog, PW Development Engineer
Brian Shelton, PW Transportation Engineer
Pat Broden, PW Sewer and Water Engineer
Development File
PF /prf
�r`lla i_'Gi
/� .1.. .ti:.�hlr M•r
1•. �.'i11tMi.77� ':
Compensatory z:
stora excavated f
V w ^: •'� e�3.r.::c
orxrpc.v.
�' /\ 1 Mn,.•...`'•RMw�lj• (.1.�:1yIrj..i�iw«�: Y�w hww.1 t]
. C vc.• v •
it • �i�.I.w'•w. ,�' � • �il•.�.�.. � ...c
`�.'•• :ems
oftettiVatte
i,iw t4�i C��•�Y ��Hf,�•Jt`!Ir!�•Hwl
x• s• mss'. ~r:
Previous 100 -year
Floodplain edge
r.;.,; r, r.•.
B'
. �i ��:- ..�,1. �•�11� �+!iA�,yr ^i :�1.�•2:5: ��fiL. ^Mlw...r�.�;» 1... lil�4f..:`,!,::1.
AA'
\ \••\• ••.•
\\\.•
' ''' ' ' ' ' \ /'
/ I / / r / / / / / / /
♦.•••••• ♦ ♦•. \.
/, ///
• •.
/ / / / / / / / / / / / / /
• • • • • • • . • • • • • •'•
/ / / / r / / / / / / / / / / /
• \ \ \ . • • \ • \ \ •. •. \ \ \ \ \
••/ / / 4 / : / r / / / / I / /'•/•/ / / / / / •/ •/ •/ •/ •I •/ •/ •/ / •/
• • • • • • • \ • • • • •• •. •. •• \ • • S. \ • • • • • • • N. • • •
% \ \ • •. \ ♦ ♦ • ♦ \ 1 \ \ . \ . \ 1 . •• . \
/•I•/ I /• /••I I /•I / I / I I I I / I / / / / / / / / / / I /• /•/
700 -Year
Floodplain
Elevation
BB'
100 -Year
Flood pI:in
Elevation
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
o O.eeeeeleee0 00 • • • • • • • • •• • • • • • \ \
/ I I / / / / / / I / / I I / ..
• '\ • • • • • • • • • • • • • \
' I / / / / I •
\.,.. \•
�^
• .%• • %• •••
•••••• LXCi1Viltt \. \..\ /.\..♦ .\
• I / / / / /' . 4 . r I / / / / •/ / / / / I'•/'•/ / /'•.J
' • • • • • • • \ • • • • • • • •. • • • • • • • • \ • • s. • •
FIGURE 10
. KING CO'UNTY'S COMPENSATORY STORAGE .REQUIREM NT
rb
(,e
.:C'�4'_�:�: ^`.:i::-; ±i 1_r.7„ra?�rP �.: �' 7y�n. zL" V.:- 'i%C:`�i ?c`SC•1t21:i'.dri4�.S*"
OUR JOB NO. 5035
PREPARED BY:
BARGHAUSEN CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC.
18215 72nd Avenue South
Kent, Washington 98032
(206) 251 -6222
February 21, 1994.
Revisal May .10, 1994
B 29t'd DNS SNOO N3Sf1vHOatiS
Z8L8 TSZ-90Z.
066.t121/.90
,,Q• NFR AI ._INFORMATTON •
The 'proposed project lies in the northeast quarter of Section 23, Township 23 North, Range 4 East,
Willamette Meridian, King County, Washington.
The project consists of two parcels. Parcel No. 1 is bounded to the north by South 144th Street, to the east
by the Green River, to the south by existing undeveloped area and to the west by Mimic Street. This parcel
eontaiDa an existing building with asphalt parking and a storm drainage system. The drainage system from
the existing paved area to connected a.) am cusaug w.ubolc e1ona tarot % 144th Str at. Art existing 36..in,-}i
concrete storm drainage system conveys the storm drainage runoff from this project and upstream tributary
area and discharges to the Green. River at the end of South 144th Street.
The second parcel is bounded on the northeast by Msaule Street, on the southwest by Interurban Avenue
South, on the southeast by the existing right -of -way, and on the northwest by South 144th Street. An
existing storm drainage ditch along the west portion of this parcel conveys storm drainage from the
upstream tributary area via a 36 -inch concrete storm drainage system along South 144th Street which
discharges to the Green River. A portion of this parcel is within the floodplain according to FEMA. The
flood elevation in this area has been determined by FEMA to have an elevation of 18. The proposed
development consists of two new building additions to the existing building along with proposal asphalt
parking and drive area.
PROPOSED. S.TORM DRAINAGE aTEM
The proposed project consists of one drainage basin which discharges to the existing 36 -inch concrete pipe
along South 144th Street and is tributary to the Green River. Due to the fact that storm drainage runoff
for this project'dlrectly discharges to the Green River, in accordance with The King County Surface Water
.Design Manual, a storm drainage detention system is not required (see King County Storm Drainage
Manual 1.2.3). The total existing impervious area subject to vehicular use for this project bas_bmn
calculated to be approximately 30,875 square feet. The total proposed impervious area subject to vehicular
Use for the project has been calculated to be 64 ,490 square feet. A n_ct increase of 0.77 acre of impervious
area, subject to vehicular use, has been proposed for ties project. In accordance wtri- cegtuuetK�tut
No. 5 of The King County Drainage Manual which states that, if a'proposed project contains more than'
1 acre of new impervious surface that will be subject to vehicular use or the storage of chemicals and
proposes direct discharge of the neuroff to a regional facility receiving water, lake, wetland or closed
depression, then a wet pond, shall be required for treatment of the storm drain runoff prior to discharge.
As shown, the project does not increase the impervious area subject to vehicular use by more than 1 acre.
Therefore, no wet pond treatment shall be required for this project. The project proposes to collect all of
the storm drainage rung ia_a._storin drainage tightiine sygtctn and dlsc?rarge to a pr po_s d_g'ssallaed
Ewalt prior to discharge to the existing storm drainage system in South 144th Street. The project has been
designed to provide flood storage on parking area. Grading fora new parking area has been designed not
to displace any flood storage volume available at existing condition. The proposed parking otl shall be
graded to accommodate storage volume of 10 feet over rev impervious area for. 100- year/24 -hour storm
event. - •.
£ l3 3Syd
Page 1 of 1 5035.001 (A I dc)
JN3 SN00 N3Sf1 14.023VS
Z8L8 -TSZ -993 E :ET b6ST /2T /SG►
MEETING NOTES
* ** Please note any changes and /or comments and return * **
Project:
Date:
Attendees:
GT Development
August 18, 1994
Duane Griffin, Building Official
Bob Benedicto, Plans Checker
Ron Cameron, City Engineer
Phil Fraser, Engineer
Brian Shelton, Engineer
Diana Painter, Planner
Bob McGarvey, GT Development
Bob Fadden, Lance Mueller & Associates
Bob M. - GT will eventually require 60
building space, to be occupied
now. The current schedule is
Permits complete -
Construction start
Occupy - fall 1997
,000 sq. ft. of additional
approximately 3 years from
fall 1996
- spring 1997
Duane - 1994 building code will be in effect when project
actually is going to be built, so will have to re- design
current submittal.
A building permit application is good for 6 months. Once
the building permit is issued, construction must start in
6 months. The department can grant a 6 month extension,
but this is discretionary.
Bob F. - We are interested in going ahead on our shoreline permit.
It is our understanding that, if the shoreline permit is
good for two years, we can 'vest' the shoreline permit by
applying for a building permit within that two year time
frame. Then we won't have to go through the shoreline
permit process again.
Diana - I will have to check on how long a shoreline permit is
good for, and whether or not you can vest it with a
building permit application. I would like to understand
why it is important for you to take the risk of having to
start over again on your shoreline permit if your project
is delayed beyond the two year time frame or the project
is significantly changed. Why not just do the shoreline
permit six months before you start your project, when you
1
{
know what you want to do?
Bob F. - You can never be sure if shoreline regulations will
change. We would like to vest this project under current
shoreline regulations.
Diana - I would like to make it clear that you are committed at .
this time to this site plan, building footprint and
landscape scheme because you have already obtained
approvals from the Board of Architectural Review. You
have also already gone through the SEPA process with this
proposal.
Bob B. - The current building permit application expires January
7, 1995. At that point you will have to re -file.
* * *
Diana - Status of street vacation is that the council held a
public hearing. The next step is to write a resolution
for the vacation and have the council vote on it.
Phil - There is a timing issue on the street vacation. Owners
of the neighboring property to the south are interested
in going ahead with development and vacation of their
portion of the Maule r -o -w. If GT is going to delay
their project, this may mean an access problem for these
owners. A joint vacation with other property owners may
be desirable.
Bob F. - This would mean re- writing the easements and description
of vacation.
Brian - If the vacation is done now but the project doesn't go
ahead, we have to have language in the resolution saying
that Sanft still has access through Maule Ave. His
access cannot be blocked by a gate, etc.
Ques. - Is the building tied to the street vacation?
problem if the building is changed?
Brian - Can you condition the street vacation to the
permit?
Bob F. - Setbacks are adequate even without the street vacation.
* * *
Is this a
shoreline
Bob F. - The reason the shoreline permit has not been processed is
because we can't come to an agreement on the shoreline
plantings.
2
Phil -
We rely on King County standards for riverbank planting.
The last time we reviewed the shoreline application, we
were missing the hydraulic calculations, complete
easements in shoreline area, and shoreline cross
sections. Another permits tied to the shoreline permit
is the Flood Zone Control Permit.
Diana - Historically, we have had trouble getting all the
information we need for the shoreline permit. Because of
the complexity of this project, we need assurance that
the site plan, and therefore the landscaping, won't
change with future grading plans for flood control, etc.
It is not that these things can't be worked out, but that
we haven't had all the information.
In a recent submittal your geotech said you were going to
leave the blackberry bushes in the riverbank. It has
been agreed ever since the pre -app that the river bank
would be landscaped.
Phil - We don't consider blackberries an acceptable planting for
a landscaped riverbank area.
Ques. - Is the building tied to the shoreline permit?
Diana - The entire project is considered in the shoreline zone,
because part of the parcel is in the shoreline zone.
Duane - You can't tie the building to the shoreline permit,
because the building permit application is null and void
[if it is cancelled].
Phil - It is possible to divide the Flood Control Zone permit in
two, one for the shoreline improvements and one for the
building itself. The building requires a certificate of
elevation.
Bob F. - Technically, the r -o -w parcels are separate parcels and
could therefore be considered outside the shoreline zone.
Diana - Even though the vacation and Boundary Line Adjustment has
not been completed, the project has been approved as a
whole by the Board of Architectural Review and been
considered as a whole in the SEPA process.
Phil - It is possible to do the utility permits shortly before
you start construction. They don't take very long.
* * *
Ques. - Are frontal improvements tied to SEPA? Has a developer's
agreement been drawn up?
3
Bob F. - They are required by ordinance.
Brian - We obtain r -o -w on Interurban when we vacate Maule Ave.
Ques. - What is drainage tied to?
Phil - Drainage is tied to street use and Flood Control Zone
permit.
Ques. - What is access easement tied to?
Brian - I suggest that the street vacation go through now, with
corresponding frontal improvements and the access
easement. The more things that are taken care of up
front, the more time is saved later in sorting the
project out when building permits are applied for.
Ron C. - Whoever goes forward with this project first (GT or
neighbors) will be responsible for improving access
easement to neighboring property. If neighboring
property goes ahead with project first, they will be
responsible for their fair share of the frontal
improvements along Interurban.
Diana - How are you determining 'who has started first'?
Ron C. - That can be figured out later. We have precedent to
cover this type of situation.
Bob F. - We have not gone forward with the Boundary Line
Consolidation yet because it's complicated because
different parcels are held by different banks.
Duane - The building permit will not be issued before a Boundary
Line Consolidation is complete. This is another item
that would be easy to take care of now, possibly saving
some time later.
Duane - I need a letter from Bob Fadden requesting that the
building permit be cancelled.
Diana - I want to be assured that the applicants know that if
there are significant changes to the project, that they
will have to go through the BAR, SERA and shoreline
process again.
Bob F. - Permit amendments are easy. It is easy to go through the
process again because we have all the drawings.
4
Z,T2i."�-i+tVAV:TV gr+tyaMMVII 17,M, 7,za
+aa: .
ACTION ITEMS:
o Diana to check time limitations on shoreline permit, to see if
shoreline permit can be vested with building permit
application, and if street vacation can be tied to shoreline
permit as a condition.
o Phil and Diana to review latest shoreline drawings and get
back to applicant on status of application.
o Bob F. to formally request withdrawal of building permit
application.
cc John Pierog
Jack Pace.
�r
City of .Tukwila
Department of Community Development
John W.. Rants, Mayor
NOTICE OF DECISION
f-JUn : ;2 ° ° <1994;,
Mr. Robert B. Fadden
Lance Mueller & Associates Architects
130 Lakeside, Suite 250.
Seattle, Washington 98122
Dear Mr. Fadden:
Rick Beeler, Director
This is to confirm that the Board of Architectural Review (BAR) approved the GT
Development project (File L940012) as presented on May 26, 1994 with the conditions
noted on the attachment. The BAR also adopted the findings and conclusions contained in
the Staff Report dated May 19, 1994.
Any changes to the specific design approved by the BAR will require further BAR approval.
Minor, incidental changes maybe administratively approved by the Director of Community
Development.
The appeal period for the BAR decision will be fulfilled on June 5, 1994. If no appeal of
the Board's decision is filed by that date, the decision will be final.
Please note that the local Shoreline Substantial Development Permit can be issued on June
20, 1994 if revisions are complete. At that point, the state appeal period begins, which is
30 days. As you are aware, we need drawings that illustrate all the points listed in the
shoreline permit application, including an updated landscape plan. I've included here a
permit application.for your information in updating the drawings. I've also included a memo
to the file from Phil Fraser, which documents conversations between Mr. Fraser and your
civil engineer regarding studies required by the Public Works Department whose outcome
may affect your shoreline permit application.
Please call me if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Diana Painter
Associate Planner
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 4,313670 • Fax (206) 431-3665
v .. 7114.,?fir.ih: ::74:+T_'- %.tra.:.1, :z .,!!nst?1[Ar415- :.5,1,1 `'.'sM t.4: 9;17 ;:t *:c z:<•
ATTACH1VIENT A
Conditions of Approval
1. Applicant must submit a revised tree replacement and landscape plan that addresses
the issued outlined in Item 3, including:
a. Accurate tree inventory
b. Accordance with Interurban Street Tree Plan
c. Adequate landscape screening
d. Design that complements architectural design and site
e. Design that meets shoreline policies
f. Preparation by licensed landscape architect 0
2. Rooftop mechanical equipment must be screened to the satisfaction of the Director
of the Department of Community Development at the time the project is submitted
for building approval.
City of Tukwila
John W. Rants, Mayor
Department of Community Development
Rick Beeler, Director
TO: r _ 67 /114,5/ .. .
FAX #i % 2. �. ". _ ... .
FROM: ,) /61lr %?l�t/Z Cr/ DATE:
PAGES INCLUDING
THIS PAGE:
FAX #: PHONE #: �3�. �` 2
May 31, 1994
Mr. Ray Moser, Chief
Regional Policy and Programs Section
King County
Planning and Community Development Division
Parks, Planning and Resources Department
Smith Tower Building
506 Second Avenue, Room 707
Seattle, Washington 96104
Dear Mr. Moser:
This is to confirm that expansion of the GT Development plant was
approved by the Board of Architectural Review on May 26, 1994, with
two conditions. The conditions involved revisions of the landscape
plan and screening of rooftop mechanical equipment, and must be
done in conjunction with applying for a building permit.
There were no comments on the environmental checklist for the
project. They still have to obtain their Substantial Development
Permit, under the auspices of the Shoreline Management Act, for the
project. This will require revisions of the drawings for landscape
treatment of the shoreline, and may require that they complete
their riverbank stabilization study, Flood Control Zone permit, and
final drainage plan and hydraulic calculations in order to finalize
shoreline permit drawings.
The comment period for the local shoreline permit process expires
on June 20, 1994 and the state appeal period will be 30 days after
approval of the permit. So GT will not be able to obtain their
shoreline permit until late July.
Please let me know if I can provide you with any additional .
information.
Sincerely,
Diana Painter
Associate Planner
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 4313665.
•
•cc Robert S. McGarvey
Robert Fadden
A '
Z P I A V I T
Notice of Public Hearing
fl Notice of Public Meeting
OBoard of Adjustment Agenda
Packet
0 Board of Appeals Agenda
Packet •
O F D I S T " I B U T I .O N •
hereby declare that:
EPlanning Commission Agenda
Packet
0 Short Subdivision Agenda
Packet
D Notice of Application for
Shoreline Management Permit
0 ShorelineManagement Permit
ODetermination of Non -
significance
Mitigated Determination of
Nonsignificance
Determination of Significance'
and Scoping Notice.
fl Notice of Action
Ll Official Notice
0 Other
U Other
was i ed to each of the following addresses on '/1u ktatV
'Fvv0
Name of Project
File Number Alf-' COI y
City of Tukwila
John W. Rants, Mayor
Department of Community Development
City of Tukwila
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
Rick Beeler, Director
Notice is hereby given that the City of Tukwila Planning Commission and Board of Architectural Review will
be holding a public hearing on May 26, 1994 at 7:00 p.m. located at 6200 Southcenter Blvd. to discuss the
following:
BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW PUBLIC HEARING
CASE NUMBER:
APPLICANT:
REQUEST:
LOCATION:
CASE NUMBER:
APPLICANT:
REQUEST:
LOCATION:
PLANNING
CASE NUMBER:
APPLICANT:
REQUEST:
LOCATION:
L94 -0012: GT Development
Robert Fadden, Lance Mueller & Assoc.
An addition to an industrial building with additional parking and
landscaping.
6437 S. 144th Street, Tukwila.
L94 -0017: Gateway #9
SGA Corporation
Construct a 2 -story 25,400 sq. ft. industrial/office building with 45
parking spaces.
Northwest 1/4 of the E. Marginal Way S./S. 116th Street intersection
COMMISSION AND BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW PUBLIC
HEARING
L94 -0019: Strander Retail Center sign approval
Segale Business Park
Planning Commission approval of increased sign area for four tenant
signs (per TMC 19.32.150) and Board of Architectural Review approval
of sign design for 10 tenants (per L93- 0016).
Southeast 1/4 of the Strander /Andover Pk. W. intersection.
in Tukwila.
Persons wishing to comment on the above cases may do so by written statement or by appearing at the public
hearing. Information on the above cases may be obtained at the Tukwila Planning Division. The City
encourages you to notify your neighbors and other persons you believe would be affected by the above items.
Published:
Distribution:
Seattle Times
May 13, 1994
Mayor, City Clerk, Property Owners /Applicants, Adjacent Property
Owners, File.
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 4313670 • Fax (206) 4313665
City of Tukwila
John W. Rants, Mayor
Department of Community Development Rick Beeler, Director
STAFF REPORT
TO THE BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
Prepared May 19, 1994
HEARING DATE: +i
FIT P. NUMBER: L94- esign Review
APPLICANT:
REQUEST:
Rob adden/L.ance Mueller & Associates /Architects
The addition of 44,600 sq. ft. of office, production and
warehouse space to an existing 16,500 sq. ft. office and
production space
LOCATION: 6437 South 144th, Tukwila, Washington
ACREAGE: 100,000 sq. ft. (4.6 acres)
COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN DESIGNATION: Light Industrial
ZONING DISTRICT: M -1 Light Industrial
SEPA
DETERMINATION: Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance issued
May 11, 1994
ASSOCIATED
PERMITS: Shoreline Substantial Development Permit (L94 -0013)
RECOMMENDATION: Approval with conditions
STAFF: Diana Painter, 431 -3661
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 4313670 ! Fax (206) 4313665
..
ATTACHMENTS: A. Parcel map
B. Perspective sketch
C. Site plan
D. Grading and drainage plan
E. Landscape plan
F. Elevations - north, west and east
G. Elevations - south
H. First floor plan - east building
I. Second floor plan - east building
J. First floor plan - west building
K. Colored elevations (handed out at hearing)
L. Materialsthboard (handed out at hearing)
M. SEPA Determination & conditions
Staff Report to the
Board of Architectural Review
FINDINGS OF FACT
VICINITY /SITE INFORMATION
L94 -0013: G.T. Development
Page 3
Project description: The project consists of the addition of744600 :4q ft. of office,
production, and warehouse space to an existing 116400A; ft. office and production
space. A portion of the original building will be demolished and new building areas
added on as wings to the existing shop area. Total building area will be 61,000 sq.
ft., with one story to the west and two stories to the east. The total lot area,
including the former Puget Sound Electric Railroad right -of -way and a portion of
Maule Avenue, is approximately 170,000 sq. ft.
Site description: The site is bounded by Maule Avenue and Interurban Avenue to
the west, South 144th Street to the north, the Green River and its shoreline to the
west, and a vacant parcel to the south. The site is relatively flat except in the
shoreline area and on the west side of the site, where there is a drainage ditch. The
site currently contains a number of mature specimen trees planted prior to the
development of GT Development, as well as mature landscaping planted at the time
of construction of the existing building. The proposal requires removal of these trees
and their replacement with new landscaping.
Surrounding land use: Businesses north of the site, across South 144th Street, include
one and two story offices, warehouse and light industrial uses, and one residence. To
the south are two vacant parcels that are being proposed for commercial
development at this time. To the west is Interurban Avenue South, and the Green
River bounds the site to the east.
Site development: The percentage of impervious surface proposed in conjunction
with this project is approximately 70 %, including the structure and paved areas. The
parking lot area within the Puget Sound Electric Railway right -of -way is to
accommodate flood storage, and drainage is to be handled with an underground
storm water system and a grass -lined swale. A link in the Green River Trail will be
provided on the east boundary of the site. Direct access from the structure to the
trail is provided, as well as a small picnic area.
The following studies, agreements and approvals related to development of the site
must be completed before building permits can be issued. If, as a result of the
conclusions of any one of these studies, the site plan is substantially altered, the
project must be revised and re- submitted to the Board for their approval.
Staff Report to the.
Board of Architectural Review
L940013: G.T. Development
Page 4
• o Vacation of Maule Street as indicated on the site plan;
o Location and width of access easement across Puget Sound Electric
Railway right -of -way;
o Riverbank stabilization study;
o Flood control plan, in conjunction with Flood Control Zone permits;
o Final drainage plan and hydraulic calculations; and
o A revised tree replacement and landscape plan.
Access and circulation: Access to the main entrance of the development is via South
144th Street, and access to the main parking area is via Interurban Avenue. The
project requires vacation of approximately 250 ft. of Maule Avenue on the northern
portion of the site. This removes one access driveway. This access to the property
is replaced slightly east of the existing entry. Access via Maule to the property to the
south of this. project has been replaced with an access easement through the parking
lot on the Puget Sound Electric Railroad property.
Fire access is accommodated via an existing drive serving the south side of the
structure, utilizes the Green River trail bed, and parking lot access on the east side
of the site.
Signs: New signs for the site will be developed at a future date. The applicant has
indicated that he can present this proposal to the Board of Architectural Review in
the future, at their request.
BACKGROUND
The original structure at this site was constructed in 1975 and an addition was added
in 1978. At this point in time, the owner wishes to consolidate his operations in one
structure (they currently lease sites across the street). The proposed expansion would
accommodate all their operations, from offices to production and shipping.
DECISION CRITERIA
In the following discussion, the Board of Architectural Review criteria per Section
18.60.050 of the Zoning Code is shown below in bold, followed by the applicant's and
staff's response.
Review Guidelines
1. Relationship of Structure to Site.
A. The site should be planned to accomplish a desirable transition with the streetscape and
to provide for adequate landscaping, and pedestrian movement.
B. Parking and service areas should be located, designed, and screened to moderate the visual
Staff Report to the
Board of Architectural Review
L94 -0013: G.T. Development
Page 5
impact of large paved areas.
C. The height and scale of each building should be considered in relation to its site.
Applicant's Response:
"The fact that the site is angular to Interurban Avenue and the building is set
back over 150' from the front property line helps lessen any visual impacts and
allows additional opportunity for interior landscaping among and around
interior parking and loading dock area. The height of the building varies and
the elevation plays on mass/void with glass areas, recesses and jogs, yet is tied
together with reveals and color."
Staff's Response:
A. The front facade and the main entrance to the structure faces South 144th
Street at the east end of the street. In terms of site design, this entry is
marked by a crosswalk through the parking lot from the public sidewalk, and
planters that flank the main entry. The facade fronting the public river trail
is faceted, with horizontal fenestration on both floors and in each bay.
The facade facing Interurban Avenue South is also stepped back to a degree.
The portion of the facade that is most visible from Interurban Avenue
contains a secondary entry, and is marked by horizontal fenestration. The
portion of the facade that relates to the loading dock and entrance to the
outdoor storage areas is stepped back and framed with overhangs and other
architectural elements.
Parking and circulation elements surround the structure and necessarily are
the elements by which a transition can be made from the structure to the site
and public areas. This transition is softened by landscaping at both the
periphery of the site and between the structure and the parking lots and /or
driveways.
B. Parking and circulation areas are broken down into three lots on the north,
west and southern portions of the site. The parking areas are screened with
landscaping, primarily deciduous street trees. The outdoor storage, recycling
and trash collection area is screened with an architectural element, gate and
landscaping. The truck loading area, as viewed from Interurban Avenue
South, is screened with landscaping.
C. The structure makes maximum use of the site, with minimal transition
between the structure and public areas and neighboring land uses. The
setback of the structure from Interurban Avenue will improve this situation
Staff Report to the
Board of Architectural Review
on the west side of the site.
L94 -0013: G.T. Development
Page 6
2. Relationship of Structure and Site to Adjoining Area.
A. Harmony in texture, lines, and masses is encouraged. •
B. Appropriate landscape transition to adjoining properties should be provided.
C. Public buildings and structures should be consistent with the established neighborhood
character.
D. Compatibility of vehicular pedestrian circulation patterns and loading facilities in terms
of safety, efficiency and convenience should be encouraged.
E. Compatibility of on -site vehicular circulation with street circulation should be encouraged.
Applicant's Response:
"All vehicular access points are away from the intersection of Interurban
Avenue and South 144th which is where the Metro bus stop is located.
The building faces South 144th Street and the main entry allows for three
handicap parking areas to enter without crossing vehicular traffic and is
located as far as possible from the loading and outdoor storage areas.
Landscaping or site obscuring fence surrounds the site."
Staff's Response:
A. The height and scale of the proposed structure is in keeping with the long
term vision for this area, the Interurban Special Review District standards, and
with similar projects within the corridor. Use of materials, color and texture
is also compatible with similar projects in the Interurban corridor.
B. The landscape transition to the shoreline is minimal due to the siting of the
structure at the 40' setback line. There is no landscape transition from the
site to the property to the south because the original structure to be retained
is approximately 15 ft. from the southern boundary of the site. Landscape
transitions from the site to the surrounding public streets are provided.
C. Not applicable
D. Flexibility in pedestrian and vehicular circulation patterns is limited due to the
density of the building proposal on the site. Within this limitation, safety,
efficiency and convenience has been provided for. Pedestrian movement is
provided for between Interurban and South 144th Avenue, and between South
144th Avenue and the structure.
Staff Report to the
Board of Architectural Review
L94 -0013: G.T. Development
Page 7
E. Compatibility of on -site vehicular circulation and street circulation is provided
for, in that curb cuts are limited on Interurban Avenue and vehicular access
to the site on the north side is set back from the intersection of Interurban
and South 144th. Existing parking lot access from South 144th, with the
exception of the Maule Avenue access, is to be retained. These access points
are aligned with access drives to properties to the north.
3. Landscape and Site Treatment
A. Where existing topographic patterns contribute to beauty and utility of a development, they
should be recognized and preserved and enhanced.
B. Grades of walks, parking spaces, terraces, and other paved areas should promote safety and
provide an inviting and stable appearance.
C. Landscape treatment should enhance architectural features, strengthen vistas and
important axes, and provide shade.
D. In locations where plants will be susceptible to injury by pedestrian or motor trqffic,
mitigating steps should be taken.
E. Where building sites limit planting, the placement of trees or shrubs in paved areas is
encouraged.
F. Screening of service yards, and other places which tend to be unsightly, should be
accomplished by use of walls, fencing, planting or combinations of these. Screening should
be effective in winter and summer.
G. In areas where general planting will not prosper, other materials such as fences, walls, and
pavings of wood, brick, stone, or gravel may be used.
H. Exterior lighting, when used, should enhance the building design and the adjoining
landscape. Lighting standards and futures 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.
Applicant's Response:
'The use of street trees and landscaping along Interurban Avenue were used
to screen the parking area, from the street. Shade trees throughout the •
parking area are for shade and also to break up . the parking area.
Smaller scale planting is used in more people -like spaces, for example entry,
riverside and patio. Cleaning up the river bank to enhance its scenic value.
Landscaping is used against the building facade to break up wall areas and
soften surfaces."
Staff Report to the L94-0013: G.T. Development
Board of Architectural Review
Staff's Response:
A. Topographic features of the site are limited to the shoreline area.
Page 8
B. Grades and treatment of walkways, parking areas, and other paved areas
appear to be adequate for safety and aesthetic purposes. Handicap ramps
from parking areas to entries may be revised in conjunction with referenced
site development studies and requirements.
C. Landscape treatment does not enhance architectural features. For example,
"parking lot shade trees" are provided in an irregular pattern along the length
of the facade of the structure, with little relationship between this pattern and
the bays of the building, fenestration patterns, or entry features. In general,
landscaping is provided where possible, and will help soften the appearance
of the structure from public rights -of -way.
D. Plants are separated from walkways and vehicular circulation areas with raised
curbs and planters.
E. Not applicable.
F. See paragraphs 1A and 1B.
G. Not applicable.
H. Exterior lighting is provided on the site. Compatibility of fixture design and
1.rG� placement with overall project design will be confirmed at the time the project
is submitted for building permits.
4. Building Design
A. Architectural style is not restricted, evaluation of a project should be based on quality of
its design and relationship to surroundings.
B. Buildings should be to appropriate scale and be in harmony with permanent neighboring
developments.
• C. Building components - such as windows, doors, eaves, and parapets - should have good
proportions and relationship to one another. Building components and ancillary parts
shall be consistent with anticipated life of the structure.
D. Colors should be harmonious, with bright or brilliant colors used only for accent.
E. Mechanical equipment or other utility hardware on roof, ground or buildings should be
screened from view.
F. Exterior lighting should be part of the architectural concept. Fixtures, standards and all
exposed accessories should be harmonious with building design.
G. Monotony of design in single or multiple buildings projects should be avoided. Variety of
detail, form, and siting should be used to provide visual interest.
Staff Report to the
Board of Architectural Review
L94 -0013: G.T. Development
Page 9
Applicant's Response:
"All building components are of industry standard and consistent with other
similar projects in the area, painted, rusticated concrete, textured dryvit and
color glass. Design quality is comparable with Fairway Center, the only recent
project in this area. Neighboring projects have no architectural relationship
to each other or significant design feature worth repeating."
Staff's Response:
A. The style of this structure is appropriate to the function of the structure, as
well as long term plans for the character of this Special Review District. The
structure has the appearance of a low scale, suburban office structure, with
industrial elements. Detailing is simple and appropriate to the scale of the
structure and its method of construction. The concrete is to be painted in a
soft green and shades of beige. Some dryvit is used and will contribute a
slightly contrasting texture to the painted concrete. Windows at the entries
are to be clear with aluminum frames. Horizontal window bands are to be
black tinted glass with black anodized aluminum frames.
B. The proposed structure is compatible in scale with structures in the, vicinity of
the site.
C. Building components are appropriate to the type of structure and method of
construction (tilt -up concrete). They express the desired character of the
building, which is, in *turn, in keeping with long range plans and policies for
this area. Horizontal window bands are consistent in scale and proportion
with the bays of the structure and its horizontal emphasis. Horizontal reveals
reinforce this pattern. The main entry features a two -story glass bay that
displays interior circulation elements. Materials and finishes are good quality
and should be consistent with the life of the structure, given normal
maintenance.
D. Colors consist of earth tones. An exception is the dark tinted windows, which
will contrast with the soft tones of the facade treatment. See Note A above.
E. Mechanical equipment will be screened in accordance with City of Tukwila
standards when the project is submitted for building permit.
F. Compatibility of exterior light standards and fixtures with the structure and the
site will be checked and confirmed when the project is submitted for building
permits.
Staff Report to the L94 -0013: G.T. Development
Page 10
Board of Architectural Review
G. Despite the utilitarian aspects of this structure and the horizontal emphasis in
design, variety is provided by the vertical emphasis of the entry bay, by the
faceting of certain facades, and by architectural screens and overhangs that are
features of the building. Detailing also provides interest, with reveals and
window frame details.
5. Miscellaneous structures and street furniture
A. Miscellaneous structures and street furniture should be designed to be part of the
architectural concept of design and landscape. Materials should be compatible with
buildings, scale should be appropriate, colors should be in harmony with buildings and
surroundings, and proportions should be to scale.
B. Lighting in connection with miscellaneous structures and street furniture should meet the
guidelines applicable to site, landscape and buildings.
Applicant's Response:
"New sidewalks along Interurban South and install a new Metro bus stop to
Metro standards. A lighted walk for Interurban Avenue is proposed to the
river, for public and private use."
Staff's Response:
A. Miscellaneous site structures include site furniture in the patio area of the
structure next to the river trail and bus stop fixtures near the entrance to
South 144th Street. Site furniture can be checked for appropriateness when
the project is submitted for building permits. Metro will provide a bus shelter
and additional furniture if and when ridership warrants it.
B. Lighting will be checked for location, glare, and design compatibility at the
time the project is submitted for building permits.
INTERURBAN SPECIAL REVIEW DISTRICT
The following six criteria are used in the special review of the Interurban area in
order to manage the development of this area, to upgrade its general appearance, to
provide incentives for compatible uses, to recognize and to capitalize on the benefits
to the area of the amenities including the green River and nearby recreational
facilities, to encourage development of more people - oriented use, and to provide for
development incentives that will help spur growth.
Staff Report to the L94 -0013: G.T. Development
Board of Architectural Review Page 11
1. The proposed development design should e sensitive to the natural amenities of the area.
Applicant's response:
"The natural amenity of the are ; is the Green River. The design meets or
exceeds the standard required f • r similar type development." •
Staff's response:
The project proposal is sensitiv
• despite the fact that the structur
in the public trail is provided, a
is provided on the facade that fr
base of the building at this po
shoreline where blackberry bra
2: The proposed development use should de
recreational areas and facilities.
Applicant's response:
"Public recreation is the Green
trail along the river and pedest
Staff's response:
An addition to the public recre
for with an additional link in th
side of South 144th Street
Interurban Avenue South and
Street.
3. The proposed development should prov
Applicant's response
"On -site pedestrian circulation
similar projects."
Staff's response:
to the Green River as a natural amenity,
is as close as nine feet from the trail. A link
icnic area is provided, architectural interest
nts on the trail, as well as landscaping at the
t, and native vegetation is added to the
bles now exist.
nstrate due regard for the use and enjoyment of public
ver. This project provides access to and a
an trail."
tion aspects of the Green River is provided
Green River Trail. Sidewalks on the south
rovide a pedestrian connection between
e Green River at the end of South 144th
for sae and convenient on -site pedestrian circulation.
er code and similar to industry standards of
On site pedestrian circulation is adequate. Handicap ramps may be altered
as a result of site development studies and requirements listed under. Site
Development.
Staff Report to the L94 -0013: G.T. Development
Page 12
Board of Architectural Review
4. The proposed property use should be compatible with neighboring uses and complementary to the
district in which U is located.
Applicant's response:
"The business of the project is compatible with neighborhood zoning and
designed to upgrade the physical appearance of the site."
Staff's response:
Use of the property is compatible with the character of this District as it
exists, as well as the long term vision for the District.
5. The proposed development should seek to minimize significant adverse environmental impacts.
Applicant's response:
"All reasonable precautions will be taken such as preventing runoff,
minimizing paving areas, etc."
Staff's response:
Protection against significant adverse environmental impacts on the site is
provided under the auspices of the State Environmental Policy Act and the
codes and standards of the City of Tukwila. Environmental benefits of the
project as proposed is greater control of water quality as .a result of proposed
treatment, and possible improvements in riverbank stability.
Impacts of the project such as increased runoff due to increased impervious
surfaces and the removal of mature specimen trees is mitigated.with landscape
plans and drainage plans, and the addition of a bioswale. Traffic impacts are
mitigated as noted in the SEPA Mitigated Determination of Non- significance.
6. The proposed development should demonstrate due regard for significant historical features in the
area.
Applicant's response:
'The only historical feature is the Green River and the park across the river.
Setback from and access to the river for viewing is provided."
Staff Report to the
Board of Architectural Review
Staff's response:
L94 -0013: G.T. Development
Page 13
The primary historical feature of the site is the Green River. This feature will
be enhanced by this project, as noted above.
CONCLUSIONS
1. Melatioiisllip `of-Structue ":to; Site:
The program for this structure and the cow, rat io f the site are such that there
is little flexibili in the site plan, and little opportunity to address transitional
relations ps between the structure ure and the site. As a result of this and the project's
location within the shoreline and floodway of the River, there is very little flexibility
in the site plan. The studies and requirements listed under Site Development may
therefore result in site plan modifications. If substantial alteration is necessary, this
project must be re- submitted to the Board of Architectural Review.
2. teRelationship- of;Structure and. Site ao'Adjoiriin� }Area•
The project responds in a satisfactory way to its immediate context, and makes a
positive contribution in terms of design and use to the Interurban Corridor as a
whole.
3. itaildsdape .and .Site,Treatment:,.
Both the tree replacement plan and landscape plan must be revised to the
satisfaction of staff before a building permit can be issued. Revisions are to include
the following:
A. The inventory of existing mature trees on site must be revised to accurately
reflect existing conditions, and include information on the species and caliper
of existing trees, as well as the dripline. The applicant must provide an
evaluation of existing trees on the site, prepared by a professional, to
substantiate the tree replacement plan (ie an explanation of why no existing
trees can be saved). And the tree replacement plan must meet the provisions
of the Tree Regulations ordinance in terms of replacing canopy cover.
B. Street trees along Interurban Avenue must reflect the Interurban Street Tree
Plan.
C. Screening must be adequately addressed in the landscape plan, including
screening of the structure from the Green River Trail.
D. Landscape design must complement architectural design; an example is
reflecting the symmetry of the main entry with corresponding planting design.
i
Staff Report to the L940013: G.T. Development
Page 14
The landscape design should respond to the purpose of the various elements
of the landscape plan; for example, trees along South 144th Street are shown
as ornamental trees rather than street trees. And finally, landscape elements
should complement and reinforce each other and the site plan; for example,
interior parking lot landscaping should complement the street tree plantings.
E. Plantings within the 40' shoreline of the Green River must meet City of
Tukwila standards in terms of species and location, and must be located far
enough from the Green River Trail shoulder to allow for the, safety of trail
users and trail maintenance.
F. The applicant must submit a landscape plan prepared by and stamped by a
licensed landscape architect.
Board of Architectural Review
4. Biiildin yDesi :^
Building materials, colors, texture and design is appropriate to the building type, and
will be a positive contribution to the Interurban Corridor. The dark windows and
window frames may provide more contrast than is desirable with the soft colors and
subtle textures of the rest of the building.
5. Interurban Special_'Review:,District
The project as proposed addresses the intent of the Interurban Special Review
District standards.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Approval of this project is recommended, with conditions.
1. Applicant must submit a revised tree replacement an_ d landscape plan that addresses
the issues outlined in Item 3, including:
a. Accurate tree inventory
b. Accordance with Interurban Street Tree Plan
c. Adequate landscape screening
d. Design that complements architectural design and site
e. Design that meets shoreline policies
f. Preparation by licensed landscape architect
2. Rooftop mechanical equipment must be screened to the satisfaction of t &iV
lkwjllarstafft,t the time the project is submitted for building approval.
MYik
•
0
V)
•
rn
A
V.4
P:
06 ue4
F■71
441 ,i Ei
. . -
50014 14ath STRE.T
31.(11111tElMililllin
[1
i ,,,i
•
.,4
• 0 0 pk,. er,:i
1 i i pi lip fiSf (4'i ink' itp
q a
ll
i ; 'IA 4iii1§:91.47 LE: L
i5 -"- - :711 iii 1; lat'l •;
1 $ 3
f!
1 lc e 0 gft-t ij 801: iiia '
I 0
' t14 t• i
k .!
1
•
;
,
.... ., •
: : ,
.
;,'
.:
•
i
! • •
• ; ;
Iii
_
r,
..:
•
6.111.111,0. ,
ATTACHMENT E
PRELIMINARY 4N-7:SCARE •
IL
figt.p74
52C..41iftl3T daV7 tad)
• 111112.10i nt
RENOVATIONS & ADDITIONS
G.T. DEVELOPMENT
TUKWILA, WASHINGTON
S.06
CO
jottehld
03.011.1•
nom •
olam,
IM OD DNIkadd
NOI1dIdDS30 1n031
ATTACHMENT C
U741•111A4i.
uc,u-Imr.(9131.4 tika
130 Whops. • saw. wean. 11122• 201 32! 2533
RENOVATIONS & ADDITIONS
G.T. DEVELOPMENT
TUKWILA, WASHINGTON
••
•
400 lrm •
••••
•
7C
se
4 Lor
ctsp • • e•
4 .T LoTC • • I Q °�y IO7 4 I ''
s° a IP 37/36 1st
-+ \rt.fp, , $ TUSP 77_60
U. 7, .y3 :► • 7803290705
/
.L. M w e lo µvi
. .3 ,. - y0
w h o u C 0
o
SE 14 -23 -4
I
2635.59
��. 41* • I
►�1L
sO 29 28 27
• 144TH ST.
THIS MAP IS FOR THE PURPOSE OF
ASSISTING IN LOCATING YOUR
PROPERTY AND IS NOT GUARANTEED
TO SHOW ACCURATE MEASUREMENTS .
3
CT.
5
v
szt7
V. 0./. W.II. GILU.1
0I. L! W
•0.48
D.L. to
/r55
yr y Ia . e.55
A - MENT A
ARCEL MAP
50 114
.4
ATTACHMENT B
PERSPECTIVE
;Ines m suer
aaaocarcn teeter ale
130 Y33N3e • 30.43 •••■ 00100 • 000 303 .Mi
RENOVATIONS & ADDITIONS
G.T. DEVELOPMENT
TUKWILA, WASHINGTON
3130133
3•►M31
33.E
5
—
'3! b
;KIP F6 g:11
148 ig
I r
p \
r-• ' '50'JTrij7'441T•STFILT _", r• \
• • ti --b — - -> 1S7•� =-
;- F
aGF1A(/S 16115 71H( A}tNU( SOUTH
P ►/, 0' KLN7. MA 9h0.1?
Z (706251 -6717
Y (1062SI -6767 CM
1 , T •••ri.N�
c• 1.Ut1Nw
1 PW"C 60.w84.1.. K1.CL1
For
GT DEVELOPMENT
TUKWLA, WASHINGTON
ATTACHMENT D
•
Tills: Renovations and Additions
GT Development
Preliminary Grading & Drainage Plan
1-7
tnae . � m
taots
130 w..w.• meanie ...n. N+u • ZOO MO. qua
PERSPECTIVE
1�9
L_
_ '
1
3.
a
RENOVATIONS & ADDITIONS
G.T. DEVELOPMENT
TUKWILA, WASHINGTON;
ATTACHMEN'
4
0
)4NV9 63A123 1V NOIID3S
\ A
5
4g
01.0
0
SOU1II 144tts SIOEfl
_•_)- __-__.1% l'._).‘ ...1„,=.... t-:.=.5..37-7.-'----*--aj
...\ 5 2310 4. (4512 zi
• '8
fl, .19 1
Ii
• (../)
4 Fr]
51.13.46 311 AV
q;
s
1NOOD ONINi1Vd
TOP OF BANK
8
EAST 0/4.
soMKOCIN P6Pso
dVIN A11MD A
GNIK MOO
ATTACHMENT. C
hinrag ch.74,AtRaz
c•.1•
dIATANItra■Ye,_,
130104.slao • 9691116 •osh. ' 98122.200 325 2553
RENOVATIONS & ADDITIONS
G.T. DEVELOPMENT
TUKWILA, WASHINGTON
•
^F Fr:
ig GQF
9 Gb
t li u erntnl7�ar -Si: reIV y •
i
GHA(j
..l SS
rw P
1„ 1
'4I .II
10215 7211D AVI NUE SOUIII
NEW, WA 90022
(206)251 -6222
(206)251 -0762 rAN
CMl IICJRINwG. IMO NMn00.
SU6S»4. 7NMW4NIN SIN.CIS
ow. 2:13,11
honrcotol
For:
GT DEVELOPMENT
TUKWLA, WASHINGTON
ATTACHMENT D
w I ow. 11. I a, I «r
Ms: Renovations and Additions
GT Development
Preliminary Grading & Drainage Plan
N`dld 3dVJSGNV1
4
••
•
•
•
•
IA •
■
PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE PLAN
13019\..16. • ..9111. r4.o. 96122. 206 325 2553
111
0
1..
5F
2
0
2
SOUTH loath STREET
cv qS Q6 - -E
ka7l Vi► !i i )
h6
NOI1I00V M3N
$11%
Vii►
s•.••i • i ti Or,
ONIG1ff18 ONI!SIX3
vl
OVI
61'23'16" 9 331.11'
4
NOI1100V M3N
11,1111k1111
3•n
(IR
No
•
•
ks
• / f 5 •
• •
` •
• /•
`.Vie•
RENOVATIONS & ADDITIONS
G.T. DEVELOPMENT
TUKWILA, WASHINGTON
\
F
41
6•,.r.0•1 oo,•ua\
a
II '94 u E j iu 04 so
0 " 55"Aig ci9i Y A i'il 16E, RF d'� q 1R: Xp�
I 5li x i . ip F �.
9 g
i3 t
i'
s
ri
n n o
p
V
PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE PLAN
13019\..16. • ..9111. r4.o. 96122. 206 325 2553
111
0
1..
5F
2
0
2
SOUTH loath STREET
cv qS Q6 - -E
ka7l Vi► !i i )
h6
NOI1I00V M3N
$11%
Vii►
s•.••i • i ti Or,
ONIG1ff18 ONI!SIX3
vl
OVI
61'23'16" 9 331.11'
4
NOI1100V M3N
11,1111k1111
3•n
(IR
No
•
•
ks
• / f 5 •
• •
` •
• /•
`.Vie•
RENOVATIONS & ADDITIONS
G.T. DEVELOPMENT
TUKWILA, WASHINGTON
\
F
41
6•,.r.0•1 oo,•ua\
•11
rs
r-
• • ATTACHMENT: Fi':
MPOliECA•11'
OAD
130 lakeside • sealtie wash. 95122. 206 ns 2553
RENOVATIONS & ADDITIONS
G.T. DEVELOPMENT
TUKWILA, WASHINGTON
ob no..
e. Kumla
py
ebetked
• VIV", •
revision ••
dole
r l=--1 it t1 tVhi
130Io ..1d. • milli. wash. 96122.206 329 2503
RENOVATIONS & ADDITIONS
•
6 no.
G.T. DEVELOPMENT
TUKWILA, WASHINGTON
dote no. revision
dot.
(3)
y
. •
It
rf,
F_XIVSING BUILDING
I i
[T
c
4
-----7-----i.,-
Trill-
1. ri
lb?
' •
•
•4
• y.
ATTACHMENT. H
310
1301o,•■•0. • soon!. nor!. 9111220206 325 ".153
RENOVATIONS & ADDITIONS
G.1. DEVELOPMENT
TUKWILA, WASHINGTON
(013 o.
drown s 11:1-
oohs • . revision • dole
O
O
0
u
... .... ? •.
ONI011118 JN!1S!x3
b -Q
ATTACHMENT"
4
r:71M
1301o6•166 •1.0111. 6015. 90122.206 325 2553
RENOVATIONS & ADDITIONS
G.T. DEVELOPMENT
TUKWILA, . WASHINGTON
06 CIO.
aro.n
15.15•4
02/01/94
dais
rs.l.len
001•
•
21
Jf' -P 11¢ 11 -P
L,P
(L
EX STING BUILDING
ti
N
r
0
0
hrruaD caw
&M7
•
1301oY.dd. • nom. wo.h. 95122. 205 325 2553
RENOVATIONS & ADDITIONS
G.T. DEVELOPMENT
TUKWILA, WASHINGTON
' 02/04/94
• del.' o. n.l.lon dal.
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Traffic:
City of Tukwila
Department of Public Works
John W. Rants, Mayor
MEMORANDUM
loSiana Painter
Jack Pace
Ron Cameron
WORWAXIMMIN
GT Development
Ross A. Eamst, P. E., Director
• 16 trips into/thru Interurban interchange 49 $1,000 = $16,000.
* Pedestrians crossing for bus in the future will need to be
addressed after development (Interurban).
4.
• Parking on S 144th St as noted on plan yesterday. Five on
street at east end will serve GT and trail.
• 8 - 6 south restriction provides weekday GT access, evening/
weekend trail parking.
Vacation worked out. Processing is OK.
• Frontal improvements (SW) per ordinance.
Drainage as explained by Barghausen/Fadden May
RMC:ad
(10:123)
0
RECEIVE.D
MN 0 494
COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT
6160 Solithceriter Boulevard, Suite #100 • rtikwith, Washington 081a • Ph000i. (20.614414
..„
. , .
. „ . .
ITEM NO. 687 PRO( CT NAME:
e+ .2 645)-(-0-e)t
G'T ..e>7/�[o/o/ / I,. ✓T
REVIEW TYPE: PRE- APPLICATION SEPA V. COND. USE V
SHORT PLAT SHORELINE Y BAR (DESIGN)
ROW VACATION BLA
REVIEW DATEr.
DATE RECEIVED: g
PERMITS
L 9g — OD // DO 42,
SIERRA NO. a,�� pv,/?
SITE ADDRESS SGV/T74/ 1S' 7 4/ /4'.t &ST1P� T
/VG p4 r
`r497- /7A //1/ (1- ��r1�G_� r�.oXf,%' NT ? „✓.�'�,o /1.o in/
� GOivi�9cj /44,4(4. •N /�'TGPtiRdAN,
Fire Loop /Vault v4- -,e syt'7t t�v /n L4Iz ?vim p,wBtt rYI 144A1/4" i4 #'7
Water
Hydrant
Landscape
Irrigation
Sewer
Drainage
Flood Zone
Control
Land Altering
& Hauling
.400/T/,4n/.4L 4&4 /.o . Yv-.r ./
,UiPoli�,yT T1�LF,iPANT PI.ANT/»V4 $ e t/c ei/eAf 4-2) O/? /F
. 99P/y w v7 -,42/18/4/9 USE A c4 ilvee. •Meot/
? rAT NULL
-cx
8do.rh40L.E /4/.rre.
P/F
4/0 P•97-,Iv
A's• .
GvEC.e cB LceiorAon/s &PST�./oM O...CLdh/ : co,tcreogie
�/Y s.�osy/✓,
./.01/C4.410-7
Rdc o.p/9/i✓S /moo .rTo.1eM
sP. ,OL FLa�� /49Z■Oe0 &f. i/#
Moving an Over-
sized Load
Right- of- Way v�,sT c"/ C/LDn/ S. /40.rl'.
Channelization/ 4'J / 7 t,✓ /i?/i4iY ON TYOiGA.L S�TID�ys ,�o�
Striping /Signing ,S / t-4 ST --
Curb Cut /Access/ Co //747er -/4/ oe/er kroy - T,gyo4 J
Sidewalk SyJJFLY � r9,? /yl..2l�pEO /A/ A7.4e/yVS.
Street Use
Traffic
Undergrounding
Developer's
Agreement
Turnover
Other
7X'," !"dv_orroi✓ /, J4rrp /43urker✓4 Y
7 -13a me
P5 ,PL
17Yle.
# 'O7 *F 'sn247 %� 77VIA-0 c -y r /w2r:. /A7Po/v7.�?G A_ _
P9I.0
S� /.lEi✓.OLiCJ � ' 1d'27r, jz C.4S�lJ�j//7i
c 4k LANS c ' X d e / s r 7V 7 o / . r r s r `vt k
NNE oa ex eder7
j7V/P/'7 c.4.1.45' .
XriV .o oo// 9 1, - a o / o.0 .r /01/ o,✓ r0✓r.�oP(i a 44, /r /vdere-.o e Y
(1/94)
.FOR We00.0E •/✓ rJ#-. --C A ✓G
y, PR.:vo Ay2- CGV LI' Q 7 we's? 'we,/
TYreAL ■PoAO FOIL /1¢0 f;PD! B, /Q 040 PROAILE
NOTES •
GT DEVELOPMENT
apri1 :l5 = `°1994 '
DCD COMMENTS:
Short plat
If access to the neighboring properties is accomplished through an
easement rather than dedicating a public r -o -w, a short plat won't
be necessary. check
SEPA
Minor comments include additional permits required, addition of
deciduous trees to trees on site, suggested changes to Green River
bank treatment, possible changes to street improvements. More
substantive changes may include info. from traffic report,
expansion of supplemental sheet, and info. from tree replacement
plan.
Shoreline Management permit:
Design review, Interurban Design District:
Zoning: MI
Setbacks front 25', rear 5'
Landscaping
o Canopies for existing trees need to be added to site drawing
in order to determine whether new landscape plan meets tree
preservation ordinance requirements.
o If Maule Avenue is not vacated, the back side of the parking
lot must also be landscaped as a 'front yard' (ie 15' of
landscaping). check
o If blackberries are removed from bank of river, they need to
be replaced with suitable native shrubbery in order to curtail
erosion and for wildlife habitat.
Parking
compact
standard
handicapped
parking screening
loading screening
Rooftop, trash & recycling screening
It would be helpful if the drawings showed how rooftop mechanical
equipment was to be screened. At minimum, the design review
application needs to say that screening will be shown on building
permit drawings, and will be adequate to accomplish screening from
public roadways.
..
Trail improvements
Trail improvements need to be shown per conversation on April 11,
1994 with Don Williams of the Parks Department. They also need to
satisfy the Fire Department's concerns if the trail is also to be
used for emergency access (see attached memo from Mike Alderson).
Street improvements
Street improvements and necessary easements must be provided per
the Public Works Department.
Access
The number and location of access points to the site need to
reflect Public Works Department's requirements, to be determined
after reviewing the traffic study. DCD would prefer to see the
access points from 144th St. consolidated.
Water & sewer
Trip generation /distribution, ADT peak
Maule Ave. vacation /Interurban r -o -w
Interurban improvements + street trees
PSPL easements /undergrounding
River trail easement & construction
Riverbank stabilization study
S 144th improvements - 3 lanes & access
SITE DESIGN
.CHECKLIST: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ILINGS
FEDERAL AGENCIES
( )U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
( )FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
( )DEPT. OF INTERIOR -FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICE
( )U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
( )U.S. DEPARTMENT OF H.U.D. (REGION X)
WASHINGTON STATE AGENCIES
( )DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL & HEALTH SERVICES
( )DEPT. OF ECOLOGY, SHORELANDS DIVISION
( )DEPT. OF ECOLOGY, SEPA DIVISION*
( )DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE
( )OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL
*SEND CHECKLIST WITH DETERMINATIONS AND
*SEND SITE MAPS WITH DECISION
( )OFFICE OF ARCHAEOLOGY
( )TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT
( )DEPT. OF NATURAL RESOURCES
( )OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR
( )DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
( )DEPT. OF FISHERIES
( )K.C. PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEV.
( )BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD
( )FIRE DISTRICT #11
( )FIRE DISTRICT #2
( )SOUTH CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT
( )TUKWILA LIBRARIES
( )RENTON LIBRARY
( )KENT LIBRARY
,( )CITY OF SEATTLE 'LIBRARY
( )US WEST
( )SEATTLE CITY LIGHT
( )WASHINGTON NATURAL GAS
( )WATER DISTRICT #75
( )SEATTLE WATER DEPARTMENT
( )GROUP W CABLE
( )OLYMPIA PIPELINE
( )KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT
( )TUKWILA CITY DEPARTMENTS:
( )PUBLIC WORKS ( ) FIRE
( )POLICE ( )FINANCE
( )PLANNING ( )BUILDING
( )PARKS AND ORECREATION
( )TUKWILA MAYOR
KING•COUNTY AGENCIES
( )KING COUNTY DEPT. OF PARKS
( )HEALTH DEPARTMENT
( )PORT OF SEATTLE
( )BUILDING•& LAND DEV. DIV.-
SEPA INFORMATION CENTER
SCHOOLS /LIBRARIES
( )HIGHLINE SCHOOL DISTRICT
( )KING COUNTY pUBLIC LIBRARY
( )SEATTLE MUNICIPAL REFERENCE LIBRARY
( )SEATTLE SCHOOL DISTRICTS
( )RENTON SCHOOL DISTRICT
UTILITIES
( )PUGET SOUND POWER.& LIGHT
( )VAL -VUE SEWER DISTRICT
( )WATER DISTRICT #20
( )WATER DISTRICT #125
( )CITY OF RENTON PUBLIC WORKS
( )RAINIER VISTA
( )SKYWAY
CITY AGENCIES
( )RENTON PLANNING DEPARTMENT
( )CITY OF SEA -TAC
( )CITY OF SEATTLE
( )CITY OF BURIEN
( )TUKWILA PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS
( )TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
OTHER LOCAL AGENCIES
( )PUGET SOUND REGIONAL COUNCIL
( )P.S. AIR POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY
( )SW K.COUNTY CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
( )MUCKLESHOOT INDIAN TRIBE
( )DUWAMISH INDIAN TRIBE
MEDIA
( )DAILY JOURNAL OF COMMERCE
( )VALLEY DAILY NEWS
()METRO ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING DIV.
OFFICE /INDUSTRIAL .5,000 GSF OR MORE
RESIDENTIAL 50 UNITS OR MORE
RETAIL 30,000 GSF OR,MORE
( )HIGHLINE TIMES '
( )SEATTLE TIMES
PUBLIC NOTICE MAILINGS FOR PERMITS
SEPA MAILINGS
Mail to: (comment period starts on date of mailing)
Dept. of Ecology Environmental Review Section
Applicant
Other agencies as necessary (checked off on attached list)
Include these documents:
SEPA Determination (3 -part form from Sierra)
Findings (staff report, usu. with MDNS)
SEPA Checklist (filled out by applicant)
Drawings /plans of project (site plan, elevations, etc. from PMT's)
Affidavit of Distribution (notice was mailed & sent to newspaper).
SHORELINE MAILINGS
Mail to: (within 8 days of decision; 30 -day appeal period begins
date received by DOE).
Dept. of Ecology Shorelands Section
State Attorney General
Applicant
Indian Tribes
Other agencies as necessary (checked off on attached list).
Include these documents:
Shoreline Substantial Development Permit (3 -part form from Sierra)
Findings (staff report, if applicable)
Shoreline Application Form (filled out by applicant)
Drawings /plans of project (site plan, elevations, etc. from PMT's)
- Site plan, with mean high water mark & improvements
- Cross - sections of site w /structures & shoreline
- Grading plan
- Vicinity map
SEPA Determination (3- part.form from Sierra)
Findings (staff report, usu. with MDNS).
SEPA Checklist (filled out by applicant)
Any background studies related to impacts on shoreline.
Notice of Application .
Affidavit of Distribution (notice was mailed & sent to newspaper)
Affidavit of Publication (notice was published in newspaper).
... r Con( 1 No.
RECEIVD Epic File No. UTLI Oo/
FEB Z 5 �gg4 Fee $ 325 Receipt No.
coM Utt�TV -FNVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
A. BACKGROUND
1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: Renovations & Additions -GT Devlopment
2. Name of applicant: Lance Mueller & Associates /Architects
3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person:Bob•Fadden
130 Lakeside, Suite 250 Seattle, 98122 ' 325 -2553
4. Date checklist prepared: February 14, 1994
5. Agency requesting Checklist: City of Tukwila
6. Proposed timing:or schedule (including phasing, if applicable):
As soon as all required permits are obtained, then allow approx. 6.months for
construction.
7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity
related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain.
None.
8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will
be prepared, directly related to this proposal.
Soils Report, Bank Stability Study and Level 1 Environmental
9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other
proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes,
explain.
Non
YATIEVIERINISMICIELA
i • i - "0 5e L li �i
v ...r
liz
•
Gay
0
7
N' J15 G
I4) /7 y: SC--
10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal.
Building (building, mechanical, demolition, plumbing, fire)
Shoreline Permit (conditional use,'SEPA)
Public Works (curb cuts, fire loop, storm & water extension)
Gorl ?ROL
riI
.014 2 ;a.. ■ 110
:.2:.vofgr
,6.
.11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses
and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this
checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects.of your proposal. You do not
need to repeat those answers on this page. Section E requires a complete
description of the objectives and alternatives:,of your proposal and should not be
summarized here. .
A 100,000.sf. lot with an. existing building of approx. 16,500 s.f. to be partially
demolished and partially renovated and construct 2 additions (east & wesl - side).\,.
East side addition of approx. 17,000•sf of single story mostly for storage•of
inventory. 'West side addition is 2 story space. First floor of approx. 20,066 -s.f,
of office, production and support space. The second floor of approx. 13,000 s.t.
•of offices. Additional parking on an adjacent lot is planned and shown on attached
site plan.. /'0j 57,1-L.LS •7'0? .
12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand
the precise location of your proposed project, including a street. address, if
any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over
a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal
description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably.
available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not
required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applica-
tions related to this checklist.
The southeast property of the intersection of South' 144th Street and Interurban
Avenue South, City of Tukwila, Washington.
to X37 5. / 4I.1)t 57:
13. Does the proposal lie within an.area designated on the City's Comprehensive Land
Use Policy Plan Map as environmentally sensitive?
Shoreline
•
TO 'BE COMPLETED BY APPLICA,. ( Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS
1. Earth
a. General description of the site (circle one): Flat,
rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other
Flat except where it abuts the Green River Bank. •
b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate
percent slope)? 221 except•at the bank.
c. What general types of soils are found on, the site
(for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If
you know the classification of agricultural soils,
specify them and note any prime farmland.
Typical soil of the Green River area. 3" topsoil and
10'. of loose silts and silty sands* over glacieral
soils.
d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable
soils in the immediate vicinity? If so; describe.
No, see attached letter from Earth Consultants regarding
the shoreline bank stability.
e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quanti-
ties of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate •
source of fill. Fill from an approved barrow for
building pad and sub -base to creat slopes from drainage.
Quanity not known at this time.
f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing,
construction, or use? If so, generally describe.
Yes until final •avin. and landsca• ins is installed.
g•
About what percent of the site will be covered with
impervious surfaces after project construction (for
example, asphalt or buildings)? 90%
. ( Evaluation for
h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or
other impacts to the earth, if any: Provide temporary
erosion control plan. L)0,4pc„rlpe. pL,p0t4
-07t?. U Li I-l>✓ ,4rz ,6% .
2. Air
a. What'types of emissions to the air would result from
the proposal (i.e., dust, ,automobile odors,
industrial wood smoke) during construction and= Wien
the project is completed? • If any, :,generally
describe and give approximate quantitigs if known.
Construction equipment and vehicle emissions during
construction and possible dust. Vehicle emissions
and gas heating equipment emissions after completion:
b. Are there any off -site sources of emissions or odor
that may affect your proposal? If so, generally
describe. No.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or
other impacts to air, if any:
Comply with dust and vehicle emissions standards.
3. Water
a. Surface:
1) Is there any surface water body on or in the
immediate vicinity of the site (including year -
round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes,
ponds, wetlands)? If.yes, describe type and
provide names. If appropriate, state what
stream or river it flows into.Yes, Green River.
Agency Use Only
2) Will the project require any work over, in, or
adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described •
waters? If yes, please describe and attach
available plans. Yes, half of the project is
within 200 feet of the Green River.
3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material
that would be placed in or removed from .surface
water or wetlands and indicate the =area of the
site that would be affected. Indicate" the
source of fill material.
None.
4) Will the proposal require surface water
withdrawals or diversions? Give general
description, purpose, and approximate quan-
tities, if known.
No.
5) Does the proposal lie within a 100 -year
floodplain? If so, note location on the site
plan.
Yes, sllown at southeast corner -lot.
6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of
waste materials to surface waters? If so,
describe the type of waste and anticipated
volume of discharge.
No.
Evaluation for
. Agency Use Only
b. Ground:.
1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be
discharged to ground water? Give general
description, purpose, and approximate quan-
tities, if known.
No.
2) Describe waste materials that will be discharged
into the ground from septic tanks or other.sour-
ces, if any (for example: Domestic sewage;
industrial, containing the following
chemicals...; agricultural; etc.) Describe the
general size of the system, the number of such
systems, the number of houses to be served (if
applicable), or the number of .animals or humans
the system(s) are expected to serve.
D.N.A.
c. Water Runoff (including storm water):
1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm
water) and method of collection and disposal, if
any .(include quantities, if known). Where will
this water flow? Will this water flow into
other waters? If so, describe.
Water from impervious surfaces will be collected
into an underground system and biofiltrated and
discharged into the City system.
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface
waters? If so, generally describe.
No.
ONL�' 1?URI►•46i FI.G'P .21411j11/214S-
•
d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface,
ground, and runoff water impacts, if any:
Provide a City approved drainage plan.
4. Plants
a. Che
or circle types of vegetation found on the
deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen; other'
evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other
shrubs
XX— grass
pasture
crop or grain
wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush,
skunk cabbage, other
water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other
other types of vegetation
b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed
or altered? -
All to be removed and re- landscaped per approved plan.
' c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on
or near the site.
None.
-8-
d. Proposed landscaping,
measures to preserve
site if any:
New landscape plan to
(. Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
use of native plants, or other
or enhance vegetation on the
be approves by the City.
d1 12MPUI D J ►4 (2Ft ■i 4 —
`A'c.. Vcz O1.4£ HI 1z06-T = PL -r bicaS
GD _ LA DSCAd' 1=.r pi'- .ac► —1 .
Off
5. Animals
V
a. • Circle any 'birds and animals which have been
observed•on or near the site or are known to be on
or near the site:
birds: hawk, heron, eagle songbirds, other:
mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other:
• fish: bass, salmon (trout herring, shellfish,
other:
b. List any threatened or endangered species known to
gun e on or near the site.
c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so,
pxnlain.
-Pacific Flyway
d. Proposed _measures to preserve or enhance wildlife,
if any:
• Approved landscape plan.
Will provide wildlife feature.
(A- M re.Q Or ' CD12- �t-T•i N N AEU N -
W tit. P602 E*\N7'Fi 12V4- C311 Ct EFTS • .
( Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
6. Energy and Natural Resources
a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil,
wood stove, solor) will be used to meet the
completed project's energy needs ?. Describe whether
it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc:
Electricity will be used for lighting, cooling; con-
venience and equipment outlets. Gas will be used
for heating.
b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar
energy by adjacent .properties? If so, '.generally
describe.
No.
c. What kinds of energy conservation features are
..included in the plans of this proposal? List other
proposed measures to reduce or control 'energy
impacts, if any:
Conform to Energy Code.
7. Environmental Health
a. Are there any environmental health hazards,
including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire
and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could
occur as a result of this proposal? If so,
describe.
No.
1) Describe special emergency services that might
be required.'
Fire, Police and Aid Car
2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environ-
mental health hazards, if any:
None. Di IVD02 oP do
-10-
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
b. Noise
1) What types of noise exist in the area which may
affect your project (for example: , traffic,
equipment, operation, other)?
Traffic
2) . What types and levels of noise would be created
by or associated with the project on a short -
term or a long -term basis (for example: traf-
fic, construction, operation, other) ?. Indicate
what hours noise. would come from the site.
Construction and vehicle noise during cons t,ruLtitin
vehicle noise after construction.
3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise
impacts, if any:
Comply with noise abatement regulations.
8. Land and Shoreline Use
a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent
properties?
Industrial
v
U
, . • I krei vrrtc g
b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so,
describe.
Not in recent times.
c. Describe any structures on the site.
Existing industrial building - part to be demolished,
part to be renovated.
Evaluation for
• Agency Use Only .
d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what?
See "c" above.
e. What is the current zoning classification of the
site? Ml 1,4611i1 1NoL -f 1—
f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation
of the site ?. Industrial L,&14T II-IDtIST21AL--
g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master
program designation.of the site?
Manufacturing Mi
h. Has any part of the site been classified as an
"environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify.
Bank of river.
i. Approximately how many people would reside or work
in the completed project? 150+_
j. Approximately how many people would the completed
project displace ?. None.
k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement
impacts, if any: D.N.A.
1. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is com-
patible with existing and projected land uses and
plans, if any: •
Comply to ordina,ce regulations and good design
practices. (planning & zoning)
40D rototte. t%D G4hMPVANq54.4GMA5 PLA4,4 PIDOIC .S.
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
9. Housing
a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if
any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low- income
housing? D.N.A
b. Approximately how many' units, if any, would be eli-
minated? Indicate whether high°, middle, or low -
income housing. D.N.A.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing
impacts, if any: D.N.A.
10. Aesthetics
a. What is ' the tallest height of any proposed
structure(s), not including antennas; what is the
principal exterior building material(s) proposed?
35' above finish floor.
Painted and rusticated concrete and non - reflective
glass are the principle exterior materials.
b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be
altered or obstructed?
None.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic
impacts, if any:
Well designed building and install landscaping.
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
11. Light and Glare
a. What type of light or glare will the proposal
• produce? What time of day would it mainly occur?
Night lighting will be installed.
b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a
safety hazard or interfere with views?
= No.
c. What existing off -site sources of light or glare may
• affect your proposal?
No.
d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and
glare impacts, if any:
Use photometric to limit lighting effects on site.
12. Recreation
a. What designed and informal recreational oppor
tunities are in the immediate vicinity? •
Walking next to river, Fort Dent Park is across the
river.
b. Would the proposed project displace any existing
. recreational uses? If so, describe.
No.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control ,impacts on.
recreation, including recreation opportunities to be
provided by the project or applicant, if any:
The project will provide a walking trail next to the
river and employee lunch area adjacent to the trail.
-14-
13. Historic and Cultural Preservation
a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or pro-
posed for, national, state, or local preservation
• registers known to be on or next to the site? If
so, generally describe.
None.
''b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of
historic, archaeological, scientific, ors cultural
importance known to be on or next to the site.
D.N.A.
c. • Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if
any: •
None.
14. Transportation
a. Identify public streets and highways .serving the.
site, and describe proposed accss to the existing
street system. Show on site plans, if any.
Project is on Interurban Avenue South which is a
major street north and south connecting I -5 with I -405.
4 4 'M "71
b. Is the site currently served by public transit? If
not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest
transit stop?
Yes.
c. How many parking spaces would the completed project
have? How many would the project eliminate?
'04- complete - number has been increased.over
existing inadequate parking.
-15-
Evaluation for
Agency Use .Only
Evaluation for
Agency Use'Only
d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets,
or improvements to existing roads or streets,'not
including driveways? If so, generally describe
(indicate whether public or private) .It will require
the vacation of part of Maule Street and an addition
of a . for circulation. Street frontage
improvement will be done on Interurban and 144th.
' Acele i✓A�MP..e -r
e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate
vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If
so, generally describe.
No.
f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated •
by the completed project? If known, indicate when
peak volumes would occur.
See attached traffic study.
g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transpor -'
tation impacts, if any:
See attached traffic study.
J(n OnfVDTH OF 10 Cos1:5
,6 af-p (Z DJCC/ (o - FP IP5("x Si ow
4O . 1" ,aJ
I FAA /0 H -Ti AaGKaT4eNa .
15. Public�ervices
a. Would the project result in an increased need for
public services (for example: fire protection,
police protection, health care, schools, other)? If
so, generally describe.
Fire,= Police, Aid Car for emergency use only
b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct
impacts on public services, if any.
None.
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
16. Utilities
. a. C.r le utilities currently available at the site:
electricity, nature gas, water refuse service,
telephone, sanitary sewer septic system, otli:
b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the
project, the utility providing the service, and the
general construction activities on the s'ite.or in
the immediate vicinity which might be .needed.
Electricity for heat, light, production, gas for heat,
and telephone, sanitary sewer, refuse service all trom: •
local agencies . A'0D1'rl 0N 0 10" st f e /41)1 1.4
di .4 0 . IAA VA
..
Sl v WATI4- ?LAO.
C. Signature
The above answers are true and complete to 'the best of
my knowledge. . I understand that the lead agency is .
relying on therr�tq make it decision.
Signature:
Date Submitted:
PLEASE CONTINUE TO THE NEXT PAGE.
TO'BE COMPLETED BY APPLI T
(.
E. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR ALL PROJECT AND NON PROJECT
PROPOSALS
The objectives and the alternative means of reaching the
objectives for a proposal will be helpful in reviewing the
aforegoing items of the Environmental Checklist. This
information provides a general overall perspective of the
proposed action in the context of the environmental infor-
mation provided and the submitted plans, documents, suppor-
tive information, studies, etc.
1. What are the objective(s) of the proposal?
To expand ant/ existing facility.
2. What are the alternative means of accomplishing these
objectives?
None.
MAC N oN t.1; 6r4) PF-2Y Cs5 ,44:11,6,.GE4-4'i -ro
11-4 QU T oN.
3. Please compare the alternative means and indicate the
preferred course of action:
N/A
' r%P GvL3/4r65 9 Ai oN is To apt- 4svuoATg.
'L' b J -rit% O GOMP -is{ bi4 Mme! N �►"��.
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
,
•
oot
4. Does the proposal conflict with policies of the Tukwila
Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan? If so, what poli-
cies of the Plan?
No.
Proposed measures to avoid or reduce the ccnflict(s)
are:
N/A
-23-
Evaluation for.
Agency Use Only
1
Earth
Consultants Inc.
Geotechnical Engineers, Geologists
V Environmental Scientists
January 15, 1988 E -3693
GT Development Corporation
6437 South 144th Street
Tukwila, Washington 98188
Attention: Mr. Robert McGarvey
Gentlemen:
We are pleased to submit our report titled "Geotechnical Engineering
Study, Proposed Single -Story Office /Warehouse Structure, South 144th
Street, Tukwila, Washington ". This report presents the results of
our field exploration, selective laboratory tests, and engineering
analyses. The purpose and scope of our study was to explore the
subsurface soil conditions within the proposed development area, and
to provide geotechnical recommendations for foundation design, site
preparation criteria and other geotechnical considerations.
The results of our field study indicate that the subject site is
underlain with a thin layer of topsoil overlying native soils. The
native soils consist of very loose to loose silts and silty sands
overlying loose to dense sands which extend to the maximum depth of
our borings. The proposed structure may derive support from either
conventional continuous and spread footings bearing on at least two
feet of structural fill or on driven timber piles. Due to the
consistency of the upper soils, structures supported by conventional
footings may experience settlement, and bearing pressures should be
low to reduce the magnitude of settlements.
The native soils are moisture sensitive and will be difficult to
work if the in -place moisture content exceeds the optimum moisture
content. Consequently, special considerations should be given to
design and construction practices relating to the prevention of
moisture accumulation and construction disturbance of the exposed
subgrade surfaces.
This report has been prepared for specific application to this
project in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill
ordinarily exercised by other members of the profession currently
practicing under similar conditions in this area for the exclusive
use of GT Development Corporation and their representatives. No
other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. We recommend that
this report, in its entirety, be included in the project contract
1805. 136th Place N.E., Suite 101, Bellevue, Washington 98005
222 E. 26th Street. Suite 103, P.O. Box 111744, Tacoma, Washington 98411.9998
Bellevue (206) 643.3780
Seattle (206) 464.1584
Tacoma (206) 272-6608
i
GT Development Corporation
January 15, 1988
E -3693
Page 2
documents for the information of the contractor. The following
sections of this report describe our study and contain geotechnical
recommendations regarding foundation design criteria, earthwork
considerations, and site drainage.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project site is located approximately as shown on the Vicinity
Map, Plate 1.
At the time our study was performed, the site, proposed building
locations and our approximat.:. exploratory • locations were approxi-
mately as shown on the Boring Location Plan, Plate 2.
We understand that it is planned to construct a single -story
office /warehouse structure at the subject site. Building plans were
not available for the preparation of this report; however, prelimi-
nary concepts for the proposed structure indicate that the building
will be constructed of concrete tilt -wall design with a concrete
slab -on- grade. The finish floor elevation will be at or near the
existing site grade. The structure will be approximately twenty -
five (25) feet high and will contain large areal loading bays.
Preliminary design loads for the proposed structure are estimated
not to exceed one hundred (100) kips for the column loads, twenty -
five hundred (2500) pounds per lineal foot (plf) for the wall loads,
and two hundred fifty (250) pounds per square foot (psf) for the
slab loads. The remaining portions of the site will be developed
with parking facilities and landscaping.
If any of the above design criteria change, we should be consulted
to review the recommendations contained in this report. In any
case, it is recommended that Earth Consultants, Inc. (ECI) be
retained to perform a general review of the final design.
SITE CONDITIONS
Surface
The site is located northeast of the intersection of South 144th
Street and Maule Avenue in Tukwila, Washington. It is bordered on
the north by South 144th Street and on the west by an existing GT
Commercial Development structure. The parcel is bounded by wooded
undeveloped property to the south; the Green River borders adjoining
property to the east.
Earth Consultants, Inc.
GT Development Corporation
January 15, 1988
E -3693
Page 3
The property is relatively level with a topographic relief of
approximately two feet. The southeast corner of the property
encompasses a portion of the steeply sloping embankment to the
river. The top of the riverbank was approximately twenty (20) feet
above the water level at the time of our field study. The upper
portion of the bank slopes down at approximately 3:1 (Horizon -
tal:Vertical) for a vertical distance of about eight feet, then a
near - vertical drop of approximately twelve (12) feet to the water's
edge. The upper slope area was covered with dense blackberry and
other assorted bushes at the time of our study. Partially buried
logs and other debris from earlier floods was exposed in the lower
portion of the embankment.
Two residences are located in the northeast and northwest corners of
the subject site. The house in the northeast corner, adjacent to
the river, is vacated and has two outbuildings. The home located in
the northwest corner is currently occupied. Vegetation consists of
large old- growth firs, fruit trees and thick hedges around the
houses. The south end is covered with scattered fruit and other
deciduous trees along with thick patches of blackberry brush. The
top of the embankment adjacent to the river is cleared and covered
with tall grass. An access road runs through this clearing from
South 144th Street to the northeast property corner. The road ends
on the bordering lot south of the study site.
Subsurface
The site was explored by drilling two borings at the approximate
locations shown on Plate 2. A more detailed description of the
conditions encountered at each boring location is presented on the
Boring Logs, Plates 4 and 5 of this submittal. A description of the
field exploration methods and laboratory testing program is included
in this report following the Discussion and Recommendations section.
Our exploratory borings encountered a surficial mantle of topsoil,
and sod, consisting of loose sandy silt mixed with roots and.
organics. The topsoil and sod layer is about three inches thick.
Beneath the topsoil layer are native soils consisting of very loose
to loose silts and silty sands to depths of between about ten (10)
and sixteen (16) feet below the existing grade. The silty soils
were encountered predominantly in the northwest corner of the
property with the more granular sand soils being encountered in the
southeast corner of the site. Grain size distribution tests
performed on selected near - surface samples indicate that these soils
contain from 38 to 93 percent of fine - grained soils. Below the silts
and silty sands,• loose to dense, fine to medium grained sands extend
to the maximum depth explored.
Earth Consultants, Inc.
GT Development Corporation.
January 15, 1988
Groundwater
E -3693
Page 4
The groundwater seepage levels observed while drilling varied from
about sixteen (16) to nineteen and one -half (19 -1/2) feet below the
existing grade in Borings B -1 and B -2, respectively. The ground-
water levels are indicated on the boring logs. The groundwater
seepage level is not static, and fluctuations in the level may occur
depending on the amount of rainfall, surface water runoff, and other
factors. Generally, the water level is higher in the wetter winter
months.
DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
General
The site is underlain with native granular soils consisting of very
loose to loose silts and fine - grained silty sands extending to about
sixteen (16) feet below the existing grade. Beneath this stratum,
loose to dense sands extend to the a depth of about forty (40) feet
or more below the ground surface. The proposed structure may be
supported by conventional continuous and spread footings bearing on
at least two feet of structural fill placed over recompacted native
soils.
Footing pressures of twelve hundred (1200) psf will induce ap-
proximately one and one -half inch of total settlement, and about one
inches of differential settlement. Greater footing pressures will
result in larger total and differential settlements. Most of the
settlement will occur during construction. If the proposed struc-
ture cannot tolerate the above settlements, foundation support can
be attained from a deep foundation system of piles or piers bearing
on the medium dense to dense sands beneath the upper loose layers.
Total settlements for timber piles driven ten feet into the medium
dense to dense sands and supporting an axial load of twenty (20)
tons are estimated at one -half inch.
The manageability of the upper soil layer during wet weather
construction is also a concern for the proposed development. The
silts and silty sands contain a high percentage of fines and are
moisture sensitive. Moisture from rainfall combined with construc-
tion disturbance could further weaken the loose subgrade soils and
reduce their workability. Soils which cannot be recompacted to
structural fill specifications will have to be removed from the
building area and replaced with a suitable wet weather material.
Therefore, we recommend that special considerations be given to
design and construction practices relating to the prevention of
moisture accumulation and to provide a working surface during wet
,weather construction.
Earth Consultants, Inc.
GT Development Corporation
January 15, 1988
E -3693
Page 5
The following sections of this report present the results of our
study in further detail. Our recommendations for various geotech-
nical aspects of the development are based on the information from
the field, limited laboratory testing, analyses, and our experience
and engineering judgement.
Riverbank Concerns
We have discussed the issue of river bank stabilization with Mr.
Andrew LeVesque of the King County Office of Surface Water Manage-
ment and with Mr. Phil Fraser of the City of Tukwila. King County
has a goal of improving riverbanks along the Green River in regard
to both bank stability and erosion. We understand that the subject
site will be governed by the requirements of the City of Tukwila.
The City of Tukwila generally follows King County's goals for river-
bank stabilization.
For preliminary planning purposes, we anticipate that the following
requirements may be made at the time you apply for a building
permit:
(1) Provide a thirty (30) foot wide easement along the
top of the bank with a fifteen (15) foot wide
gravel surfaced roadway;
(2) Trim the oversteepened bank back to an inclination
of 2H:1V and revegetate disturbed areas; and
(3) Place coarse riprap, including several large rocks
up to fifteen hundred (1500) pounds in weight, on
the portion of the riverbank below the vegetation
line.
Included in these requirements will be a detailed on -site survey of
the actual bank configuration, river bottom profile, and a riverbank
stabilization report.
Requirements for riverbank stabilization may change in the next few
years and the goals of the regulating agencies - City of Tukwila,
King County, Washington State Department of Fisheries, and the Army
Corps of Engineers - are-being applied on a case -by -case basis.
It may also be necessary to provide an on -site storage facility for
.storage of a one - hundred -year rainstorm for seven days.
Earth Consultants, Inc,
1
GT Development Corporation
January 15, 1988
Foundations
Conventional Footings
E -3693
Page 6
The proposed structure may be supported on conventional continuous
and spread footings bearing on at least two feet of structural fill
placed over the native soils. Prior to placement of the structural
fill, the exposed surface of the native soils should be densified
in -place to at least 90 percent of the maximum dry density. Fill
placed under footings should extend outward from the edge of the
footings for a lateral distance equal to or greater than the depth
of fill placed beneath the footings. Exterior footings should be
bottomed at a minimum depth of twelve (12) inches below the lowest
adjacent outside finish grade. Interior footings may be at a depth
of twelve (12) inches below the top of the slab. Footings bearing
on structural fill should be designed for a maximum allowable soil
bearing pressure of twelve hundred (1200) psf. Continuous and
individual spread footings should have minimum widths of fifteen
(15) and twenty -four (24) inches, respectively. A one -third
increase in the above bearing pressures may be used when considering
short term wind or seismic loads.
Lateral loads due to wind or seismic forces may be resisted by
friction between the foundation and the supporting compacted fill
subgrade or by passive earth pressure on the foundations. For the
latter, the foundations must be poured "neat" against the existing
soil or backfilled with a compacted fill meeting the requirements of
structural fill. A coefficient of friction of 0.35 may be used
between the structural foundation concrete and the supporting
subgrade. The passive resistance of undisturbed natural soils and
well compacted fill may be taken as equal to the pressure of a fluid
having a density of three hundred (300) pounds per cubic foot (pcf).
We recommend that drains be placed around all perimeter footings.
The drains should be constructed using a four -inch diameter per-
forated pipe bedded and covered with free - draining gravel. The
drains should have a positive gradient towards suitable discharge
facilities. The footing drainage system should not be tied into the
roof drainage system. The footing excavation should be backfilled
with granular soil except for the top foot which should be back -
filled with a relatively impermeable soil such as silt, clay or
topsoil. Alternatively, the surface can be sealed with asphalt or
concrete pavements.
Earth Consultants, Inc.
GT Development Corporation
January 15, 1988
E -3693
Page 7
Driven Timber Piles
Alternatively, the proposed structure may be supported on sound
pressure- treated Class B timber piles driven into the medium dense
to dense sands underlying the very loose to loose silts and silty
sands at a depth of about sixteen (16) feet below existing ground
surface. The piles should conform to the specifications outlined in
the Uniform Building Code Standard 25 -12 for friction and end
bearing piles. Timber piles should have a minimum butt diameter of
twelve (12) inches and a minimum tip diameter of ten (10) inches.
Timber piles should be placed no closer than three pile diameters,
center -to- center.
A maximum compression load capacity of twenty (20) tons can be used
for piles driven to the recommended criteria. For a hammer having a
rated energy of fifteen thousand (15,000) foot - pounds, the recom-
mended driving criteria is twenty (20) blows per foot for the last
one foot of driving, and a final set of one -half inch or less.
Similar driving criteria can be developed for other hammer energies,
if needed.
A portion of the compression load capacity will be developed by side
friction in the bearing stratum. However, virtually all of the
tension (uplift) and lateral load capacity will be dependent upon
embedment in the bearing stratum. A timber pile penetrating five
feet into the bearing sands is estimated to have an• allowable uplift
capacity of four. tons. Similarly, we estimate a one -ton lateral
load applied at the ground surface will create less than one - eighth
(1/8) inch deflection.
Based on the boring information, we expect that pile lengths will
vary between twenty -one (21) and twenty -seven (27) feet below
existing grade. Because soil conditions can be variable, we
recommend that at least two indicator test piles be driven prior to
ordering the production piles to obtain a more accurate estimate of
pile lengths and to better determine driving characteristics. The
piles and hammer used should be of the same size and type as will be
used in production driving. ECI's representative should observe the
installation of both thelindicator piles and production piles on a
full -time basis.
Lateral loads due to wind or seismic forces may be resisted by the
piles and by passive pressure on the grade beams. Additional
lateral loads can be resisted by battered piles and friction between
the slab and the subgrade. A coefficient of 0.35 may be used
between the concrete slab and subgrade. Passive earth pressures on
the grade beams can be assumed to be equal to that exerted by a
fluid having a density of three hundred (300) pcf.
Earth Consultants, Inc.
GT Development Corporation
January 15, 1988
E -3693
Page 8
Slab -on -Grade Floors
Slab -on -grade floors may be supported on the native soil subgrade
after proofrolling or on structural fill. Any disturbed native
soils which cannot be compacted to structural fill specifications
should be replaced with structural fill. Four inches of free -
draining sand or gravel should• be placed over the subgrade as a
capillary break. We also recommend that a vapor barrier, such as a
6 mil plastic membrane, be placed between the slab and the capillary
break material to reduce water vapor transmission through the slab
and the resultant moisture - related damage to interior furnishings.
Two inches of sand may be placed over the membrane for protection
during construction, to aid in curing of the concrete, and to help
prevent cement paste bleeding down into the underlying capillary
break.
Site Drainage
Groundwater was encountered in our borings at depths ranging from
approximately sixteen (16) to nineteen and one -half (19 -1/2) feet.
However, it has been our experience that groundwater levels change
significantly due to changes in rainfall amounts, surface drainage
or other factors. If seepage is encountered during site prepara-
tion, the water should be drained away from the site by use of
drainage ditches, perforated pipes or French drains.
We suggest that .appropriate locations of subsurface drains, if
needed, be established during grading operations by ECI's represen-
tative, at which time the seepage areas, if present, may be more
clearly defined.
The site should be graded so that surface water is directed off the
site and away from the tops of slopes. Water should not be allowed
to stand in any area where buildings, slabs, or pavements are to be
constructed. During construction, loose surfaces should be sealed
at night by compacting the surface soils to reduce the infiltration
of rain into the soils. Final site grades should allow for drainage
away from the building foundations. We suggest that the ground be
sloped three percent for a distance of at least ten feet away from
the buildings except in areas that are to be paved.
Pavement Areas
All parking and roadway areas may be supported on native soils
provided those soils can be compacted to 95 percent density (ASTM D-
1557 -78) and are stable at the time of construction. Structural
fill and/or geofabrics may be needed to stabilize soft, wet or
Earth Consultants, Inc.
GT Development Corporation
January 15, 1988
E -3693
Page 9
unstable areas. In most instances, twelve (12) inches of granular
fill will stabilize the subgrade except for very soft areas where
greater thicknesses may be required. The upper twelve (12) inches
of pavement subgrade should be compacted to at least 95 percent of
the maximum density. Below this level a compactive effort of 90
percent will be adequate. The pavement section for lightly - loaded
traffic and parking areas should consist of two inches of Asphalt
Concrete (AC) over four inches of Crushed Rock Base (CRB) or three
inches of Asphalt Treated Base (ATB). Heavier loaded areas will
require thicker sections. We will be pleased to assist you in
developing appropriate pavement sections or specifications for heavy
traffic zones, if needed.
Site Preparation and General Earthwork
The building and pavement areas should be stripped and cleared of
all slabs, trees, existing utilities, surface vegetation, all
organic matter and any other deleterious material. It is an-
ticipated that a stripping depth of up to six inches will be
required. Stripped materials should not be mixed with any materials
to be used as structural fill. Structural fill is defined as any
fill placed under buildings, roadways, slabs, pavements, or any
other load bearing areas.
Ideally, but particularly in wet weather, structural fill should
consist of a free - draining, organic -free granular material with a
maximum size of three inches and no more than five percent fines
(silt and clay -sized particles passing the No. 200 mesh sieve).
During dry weather, any compactible non - organic soil meeting the
above maximum size criteria can be used as structural fill.
Following the stripping operation, the ground surface where struc-
tural fill, foundations, or slabs are to be placed should be.
proofrolled. All proofrolling should be performed under the full -
time observation of ECI's representative. Soil in loose or soft
areas should be either recompacted or removed and replaced with
structural fill to a depth that will provide a stable base beneath
the general structural fill.
Structural fill under floor slabs and footings should be placed in
thin horizontal lifts of not more than ten inches loose thickness,
and compacted to a minimum 95 percent of the maximum dry density as
determined by ASTM Test Designation D- 1557 -78 (Modified Proctor).
The fill materials should be placed at or'near.the optimum moisture
content. Fill under pavements and walks should also be placed in
thin horizontal lifts and compacted to 90 percent of maximum density
except for the top twelve (12) inches which should be compacted to
95 percent of maximum density.
Earth Consultants, Inc.
GT Development Corporation
January 15, 1988
E -3693
Page 10
On -site soils at the time of our exploration were near the optimum
moisture content and may be used as structural fill provided the
grading operations are conducted during dry weather. However, the
on -site soils have a significant amount of fines. Thus, compaction
and grading will be difficult if the soil moisture increases above
the optimum moisture content. The moisture content can be reduced
by aeration in dry weather, or by intermixing lime or cement powder
to absorb excess moisture.
FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING
Our field exploration was performed on December 4, 1987. Subsurface
conditions at the site were explored by drilling two borings to a
maximum depth of thirty -nine (39) feet below the existing grade.
The borings were drilled by Drilling Unlimited, using a truck -
mounted drill rig. Continuous flight, hollow stem augers'4ere used
to advance and support the boreholes during sampling.
The locations of the borings were approximately determined by taping
the distances to an assumed property corner. Elevations of borings
were approximately determined by hand level methods. The locations
and elevations of the borings should be considered accurate only to
the degree implied by the method used. These approximate locations
are shown on the Boring Location Plan, Plate 2.
The field exploration was continuously monitored by an engineering
geologist from our firm who classified the soils encountered and
maintained a log of each boring, obtained representative samples,
measured groundwater levels, and observed pertinent site features.
All samples were visually classified in accordance with the Unified
Soil Classification System which is presented on Plate 3, Legend.
Logs of the borings are presented on Plates 4 and 5. The final logs
represent our interpretations of the field logs and the results of
the laboratory examination and selective tests of field samples.
The stratification lines on the logs represent the approximate
boundary between soil types. In actuality, the transition may be
gradual.
In each boring, Standard Penetration Tests (SPT) were performed at
selected intervals in general accordance with ASTM Test Designation
D -1586. The split spoon samples were driven with a one hundred
forty (140) pound hammer freely falling thirty (30) inches.
Representative soil samples were placed in closed containers and
returned to our laboratory for further examination and testing.
Visual classifications were supplemented by index tests such as
sieve analyses on representative samples. Moisture contents were
Earth Consultants, Inc.
GT Development Corporation
January 15, 1988
E -3693
Page 11
performed on all samples. Results of moisture determinations,
together with classifications, are shown on the boring logs included
in this report. The results of two sieve analyses are illustrated
on Plate 6, Grain Size Analyses.
LIMITATIONS
Our recommendations and conclusions are based on the site materials
observed, selective laboratory testing, analyses, and our experience
and engineering judgement. The conclusions and recommendations are
professional opinions derived in a manner consistent with that level
of care and skill ordinarily exercised by other members of the
profession currently practicing under similar conditions in the
area. No warranty is expressed or implied.
The recommendations submitted in this report are based upon the data
obtained from the borings. Soil and groundwater conditions between
borings may vary from those encountered. The nature and extent of
variations between borings may not become evident until construc-
tion. If variations then appear, ECI should be requested to reeval-
uate the recommendations of this report and to verify or modify them
in writing prior to proceeding with the construction.
Additional Services
It is recommended that ECI be retained to perform a_ general review
of the final design and specifications to verify that the earthwork
and foundation recommendations have been properly interpreted and
implemented in the design and in the construction specifications..
It is also recommended that ECI be retained to provide geotechnical
services during construction. Because of the nature of the soil
conditions, we do not accept responsibility for the performance of
the foundation or earthwork unless we are retained to review the
construction drawings and specifications, and to provide construc-
tion observation and testing services. This is to observe com-
pliance with the design concepts, specifications or recommendations
and to allow design changes in the event subsurface conditions
differ from those anticipated prior to the start of construction.
Earth Consultants, Inc.
GT Development Corporation
January 15, 1988
E -3693
Page 12
The following plates are attached and complete this report:
Plate 1 Vicinity Map
Plate 2 'Boring Location Plan
Plate 3 Legend
Plates 4 and 5 Boring Logs
Plate 6 Grain Size Analyses
Respectfully submitted,
EARTH ,CONSULTANTS, .INC.
John J. Moran
Project Manager
Glen Mann, P. E.
Vice - President
RW /JJM /GM /km1
Reference :
King County / Mop 41
By Thomas Brothers Mops
Dated 1988
Earth
Consultants Inc.
Vicinity Map
GT Development / Lots 7-10
Tukwila, Washington
Proj. No 3693 'pate Dec. '87 I Plate
LEGEND
B- I Approximate Location of
ECI Boring, Proj. No.
E-3693, Dec. 1987
Lot Number
Existing Building
0
Approximate Scale
50
100
200ft.
Reference
Plat Map
Received From . Client
Undated
Earth
Consultants Inc.
Boring Location Plan
GT Development / Lots 7-10
Tukwila, Washington
Proj. No. 3693 Date Dec. '87
Plate 2
MAJOR DIVISIONS
GRAPH
SYMBOL
LE TT
SYMBOL
TYPICAL DESCRIPTION
Coarse
Grained
Soils
More Than
50% Material
Larger Than
No. 200 Sieve
Size
Gravel
And
Gravelly
Soils
More Than
50% Coarse
Fraction
Retained On
No. 4 Sieve
Clean Gravels
(little or no fines)
it;17. . °:e a
p..� e:• ••.e +
a: ° - = °'•'O' •
Gw
gW
Well- Graded Gravels, Gravel -Sand
Mixtures, Little Or No Fines
:0: :f : :.: '
• . • • • • •
GP
gp
Poorly - Graded Gravels, Gravel -
Sand Mixtures, Little Or No Fines
Gravels With
Fines ( appreciable
amount of fines 1 .
• • • •
• •
GM
gm
Silty Gravels. Gravel -Sand-
Silt Mixtures
,I
GC
gC
Clayey Gravels, Gravel - Sand -
Clay Mixtures
Sand
And
Sandy
Soils
More Than
50% Coarse
Fraction
Passing No. d
Sieve
Clean Sand
(little or no fines)
a •00° 00 •
° °O e° •°
o •o e •
SW
SW
Well - Graded Sands, Gravelly •
Sands, Little Or No Fines
O ;t..
,•::
::• :;;
SP
Sp
Poorly- Graded Sands, Gravelly
Sands, Little Or No Fines
Sands With
Fines (appreciable
amount of lines)
A•j 1 tt
. }�'r'r •'•t: •{'
• •'•'t i''
::
BORING NO.
Logged By DG
ELEV. 99•5#
Date 12/4/87
Graph
CS
Soil Description
Defy )h
Sample
(N)
Blows
Ft.
(�)
• 2
f.
I.
1 .`
2.
'r;-
'
>,#
}
:c�
:1:,:
c
'
�`
.
.
#'
�;
.
SM
(3" sod)
Brown silty fine SAND with trace gravel,
very loose to loose to medium dense,
moist
-
-
— 5
~10
—15
1.
4
5
9
10
9
10
15
20
50
40
17
8
16
30
22
32
30
32
28
'
:',
'
••
'•:
sp
Black fine SAND, medium dense to dense,
saturated, poorly graded
St
-
`
—20
—25
•-30
—35
I-1 r"l rI n
Boring terminated at 39.0 feet below existing grade. Groundwater
encountered at 16.0 feet during drilling. 3/4" PVC standpipe
installed to 39.0 feet. Lower 10 feet slotted. Boring backfilled
with cuttings. Capped with bentonite. .
•
Subsurface eondeiona doweled non ee our observations al the brae and focahon of this sepearfory Ws. m odelad by.rgwr.nnq W. anMrr. and
prdq.rnere. They we nee necessarily nora..nrneo of other brass and location Ws cannot accept mponabeny for me us. ce nrrpMran by Oman of
m$ormalwn pre.ar Ud on dee log
01
Earth
It Conskt ultants Inc.
' G..t.ean. Engineering and why
BORING•LOG
GT DEVELOPMENT /LOTS 7 - 10
TUKWILA, WASHINGTON
Proj. No. 3693 1
Date' Dec' 87 _
IPilfie 4.. .
.
Logged
Date
BORING
By DG
NO. ___2____,.
ELEV.
99.5±
12/4/87
Graph
CS
• Soil Description
Depth
Sample
(N)
Blows
Ft.
(94)
(3" sod)
ML
Brown SILT with some sand, loose,
moist, trace roots
_
— 5
S
S
4
7
12
22
=
9
34
sp
Gray -brown fine SAND, loose to medium
"30
-
I
12
13
?;
•• `:
dense, occasional silt lenses, dry to
moist
8
5
-
15
'
:I:
17
30
;;::'
• :
sp
•
Black fine to medium SAND, medium dense,
saturated
—20
29
32
—25
•
;
.'•
aE
11
—30
1
27
35
:
T
41
28
Boring terminated at 39.0 feet below existing grade. Groundwater
encountered at 19.5 feet during drilling. Boring backfilled with
cuttings.
Subsurface ccnditens depicted ..ar..aa our obeavarions a the tem. and 'ocean of the eaplo.aory bole. mobbed by *Mowing leas. walrus. and
'testament They ale not n.osnariy noprimeentigns a other braes and location.. Ws canna accept r..00nabr+n b< the use or onstraa.,on by others of
o priate
antenna= presented on ma leg.
BORING LOG
# 4) 4 Earth
. Consultants Inc.
DEVELOPMENT /LOTS 7 - 10
TUKWILA, WAS8INGTON
' Geetechnical Engineering and Geology
Proj. No. 3693
Dec' 87 • .
tPlate • .
I
CI)
N
•
J
2
W
1—
w
0
}
S
2
w
N
-62
Q
s
v
Q
O
z
Q
N)
S
0
2
m
w
T
1)
W
LL
0
cc
w
2
w
s
0
2
C7
2
z
w
a
0
LL
0
W
N
0
Z00'
£00'
P00'
900'
900•
10
Z0'
CO'
b0'
90'
00Z
001.
08
09
OS
0b
0
OZ
91.
01
8
0
r•
0
PERCENT COARSER BY WEIGHT
0
0
v
0
0
o
to
0
0
0
0
IIIIuIIIIIIIIIuII "IIuIIIu1IIIII"IlIIIIIIIIIIIII
IIi111IIIIIIIlIIIIIII IIIII111111IIIIIIIIIIIIIUII
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiIIIIIIIIIII
UMMOMUll• UIINUI. UUIOUIIUMMOMM EMOMMOMOMMOOMMOMMOM
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■OMMIm ■■ nnilli ■■ ■ ■■■ mmino■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■ ■ ■■ ■ ■ ■ ■■ ■ ■■ ■ ■■ ■ ■ ■■■■ ■ ■.■■■ ■■ ■■
mommommwommommomminimmommoommummummommilummmummi
•
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
INUMMINIIIIIMMUMMUMUMMIUMEMIUM
IIIIIIIH!HIHIIIIIIIIIIIHIIiiIIIIIIHhIIIINIIi
1IIn1111I111II11111I11I11Vllll111111111
�9alll 11111111111111111
ZL
0
0
0
m
O
0
0
m
O
0
sr
PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHT
0
Earth
Consultants Inc.
• GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING & GEOLOGY
0
100'
ZOO'
COO'
900'
900'
800'
10
ZO'
CO'
b0'
90'
80'
•
co,
CC
Z'
W
E ' -
9'z
8' w
N
N
Q
cc
Q
E
8
01
OZ
OE
Op
0
09
09
001
OOZ
00£
N
w
W
2
LL
0
z
Ea
_n
C
W
N
c
a
O
0
W
LT.
LL
-J
W
>
CC
W �
N
Q
0
0
H
W
J
Cd
0
U
J
a
J
J
• ifsI
I� N
r-1
t SAND
V
N
a«
Wes'
U
e--1
}
w
0
a
GRAIN SIZE ANALYSES
GT DEVELOPMENT /LOTS 7 - 10
TUKWILA, WASHINGTON
Proj. No. 3693 .1 Date Dec' 87 'Plate 6
To: Diana Painter, Plannin
From: Ron Cameron, via P
Division
Fraser, Senior Engineer
Date: May 11, 1994
Subject: GT Development
6437 S 144 St
Project No. PRE93 -022
SEPA Review Comments
The above project was reviewed for SEPA at a special 5/10/94
meeting of the Public Works plan review meeting. The following
are our specific comments:
I
. TRAFFIC: Interurban /I405. The improvement costs at this
location total over $.13,000,000 and complexity of weaving
traffic would result in prorated shares exceeding
$5,000 /trip. It has been previously determined to use
a "fair share" of $1,000 /trip with increase traffic at this
location. GT Development's. 16 peak hour trips mitigation
is $16,000.
III. PUBLIC WORKS PERMITS:
A. Land Altering - earthwork quantities for cut/
excavation, fill /backfill and haul need to be
indicated on the development plans.
B. Flood Control Zone
1.] Riverbank stabilization study required
2.] Use NGV datum; show lowest floor elevations
3.] All lowest floor elevations to be minimum of
2''feet higher than standard project flood if
levee /dike system does not protect the property;
if a levee /dike system does protect the property
minimum lowest floor elevation is one foot above
standard project flood elevation.
4.] Provide trail /riverbank /dike easement in accordance .
with agreement with Department of Parks and
Recreation.
1
Page 2
C. Drainage (Analysis)
The May 5, 1994 faxed GT Development revised storm
drainage narrative (attached), Page 1, "Proposed Drainage
System ", last sentence - identifies "storage" based on
100 yr /24 hour storm event. Request drainage design
applies criteria identified in King County Surface Water
Design Manual under CORE REQUIREMENT #3 (Section 1.2.3 -
Peak Rate Runoff Control Performance) and includes
consideration of 100 yr /7 day event for all new .
.impervious surfaces (roofs as well as vehicular) -
for river storage calculations.
Also, compensatory storage to be provided as part of the
GT development design in accordance with King County's
Flood Hazard Reduction Plan Policy FP -4 which states:
"For structures and fill placed in the floodplain
should be compensated for by excavation of equivalent
volumes at equivalent elevations" (See Figure 10
attached).
D. Utilities -
1.] Water - Improvements will need to, be in compliance,
with the city's adopted Comprehensive Water Plan
(1993) & will require installation of a new 10"
main in Interurban /Maule Ave S R /W's replacing the
existing 2" main.
2.] Sewer - Improvements will need to be in compliance
with the city's adopted Comprehensive Sewer Plan
(1993).
3.] Street Use
o Channelization required on Interurban Ave S.
in accordinance with the Interurban Ave Plan.
o Frontal improvements required on both
Interurban Ave S and S 144 St in accordinance
with the Ordinance #1516 and the Interurban
Ave Plan (Entranco).
o Private driveways (25' - 35'maximum)
E. Landscape Irrigation - drought tolerant plantings
are encouraged. If permanent irrigation plumbing
is installed, a conservation system shall be utilized.
Please let me know if you have any questions concerning the
above.
cf: Ron Cameron, City Engineer
John Pierog, PW Development Engineer
Brian Shelton, PW Transportation Engineer
Pat Broden, PW Sewer and Water Engineer
Development File.
PF /prf
t
1
Previous 100 -year
Floodplain edge
AA'
'.. ♦••••.•..
/// m o r e /te
•• N. r '
• • • ♦ • • • • • •
r r / r r r// /// r/
/ r / / r / / / / / / / / / / r
• I• /•/ / /•/ I / r / r r / / / /
• • • / •/ 01. r / / / •r / / / / / / / / /• /•//'/•r • •/• ••• •
/ I / I I I / I / / / / / • •• •• I I / / I I I / / / / I / I I / I /
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • \ •. • • • • • •. • • • • • • • • • •
00. Year
Floodplain
Elevation
BB'
•
• / / / / / / /;/ rr /
••••••••••••••
rr / / / / / / /r / /r ///
•\.
•�r \• %• • / \/•Cotopcntatory
♦., \\
•.
rr /rr /' Storage /// •
••••• Frxcavattun•./ ..♦♦♦♦..♦ ♦♦
• • • . • • • • • • • • • ♦•♦ •. • • • • \ • •
•
•
•
•
•
100 -Year
Flood plain
Elevation
T
•
FIGURE 10
. MN.
ING CO'UNTY'S COMPENSATORY STORAGE REQUIREMENT
Facsimile No:
To:
RE:
Comments:
(2o6') y3/ -3K65.
C.
Ctv0. ENGINERING. LAO PLANNING. SURWfiNG, ENVIRONMENTAL 9ER ICE$
Date:
Our Job No:
W o /79
('` (7 or 7E;/ G''' /a
t1eV8%pP 6r
61101 4y
5035.
No. of Pages:
(Including Covor Shod)
...... 4:/./Ll1 R.il
K {,� •.S+G
.Nola .55( r' r c.« +Mrswl emo., o. if ow do mot ,. .• h4. r+.wr.6ei
/4.7.► ..e* w ....,..dally 7 1.44.40..... Jlt.i...E yo.o.
•
8215 .22NO AvENUE SOUTH KENT. WA 98032 1206) 231.6222
• A
BOARD OF ARC IITECTURAL REVIEW
DESIGN REVIEW
APPLICATION
CITY OF TUKWILA
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188
Telephone: (206) 431 -3680
F[�R STa FF 1 `ISF :::•• •
ass Reference
Keeei tVuniters'
:,c•: +:;j4:i a• r: >v;:<o \�icJe•a'R)i :•::i::i
1. BRIEFLY DESCRIBE YOUR PROPOSAL: An addition. to .a industrial • building with .
additional parking and landscaping.
2. PROJECT LOCATION: (Give street address or, if vacant, indicate lot(s), block, and sub-
division; or tax lot number, access street, and nearest intersection)
The southeast corner of Interurban Avenue South & South 144th Street
Quarter: NE Section: 23 • Township: 23N Range: 4E
(This information maybe found on your tax statement)
3. APPLICANT:* Name: Robert Fadden - LANCE MUELLER & ASSOCIATES /ARCHITECTS
Address•130 Lakeside, Suite 250 Seattle, Washington 98122
hone: 206- 325 -2553
Signatur Date:
* The applicant is the person whom the staff will contact reg ding the application, and
to whom all notices and reports shall be sent, unless otherwise stipulated by applicant.
AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP .
4. PROPERTY Name: R o 4e4-1- S. (`n eG.-t -041 -C,: GT • Deveko
OWNER
Address: £'f 3'7 s. I YY `4` 5+1 T a k,� ,: lay u1A '?SO 6
Phone: ad 6--�`(Y- ,3os
I /WE,[signature(s)] '-eM `.3)au
swear that I /we are the owner(s) or c tract purchaser(s) of the property involved
in this application and that the foregoing statements and answers contained in this
application are true and correct to the
best of my /our knowledge and belief. Date: 1 1 ?11
FEB 2 5 1994
COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT •
ADDRESS LABEL
REQUIREMENTS
CITY OF TUKWILA
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT .
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188
Telephone: (206) 431 -3680
Notification of persons of certain types of pending applications is required in order to encourage
citizen participation in the land use process. Applicants are required to submit a mailing matrix
and one photocopied set of labels which show:
1. The name and address of all owners of property lying within 300 feet of the boundaries of
the property for which a permit is sought; and
2. The address of all residents of property within 300 feet of the boundaries of property.
Property owner names and addresses cart be obtained from the King County Department of
Assessments located on the 7th floor of the King County Administration Building, Room 700,
500 Fourth Avenue, Seattle. To compile the information:
1. Obtain the assessor's map(s), which contains your property and all abutting property
within 300 feet. (See diagram.) You may use the maps on file in the Assessor's Office or they
can be purchased from the King County Department of Public Works Map Counter on the
9th floor of the Administration Building. It is suggested that assessor's maps be ordered
several hours in advance of the time you would like to pick them up.
2 Then, obtain a computer batch order form from the Department of Assessments, list on the
batch order form the property tax account numbers shown on the assessor's map(s) and
submit the batch order form to the Department of Assessments together with the required
fee for a printout of the information. Assistance with the tax account numbers may be
obtained through the Assessor's Office or the City of Tukwila Department of Community
Development (DCD). King County labels are not acceptable because they cannot be
duplicated.
Resident names and addresses are researched by the applicant. Kroll maps located in the DCD
have buildings and street names and addresses. The information on the mailing matrix may refer
to "Resident" or "Tenant ", with the proper mailing address, if the specific name is unknown.
12/14/90
.BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
DESIGN REVIEW APPL( .TION ( Page 2
CRITERIA
The following criteria will be used by the BAR in its decision - making on your proposed project.
Please carefully review the criteria, respond to each criterion (if appropriate), and describe how
your plans and elevations meet the criteria. If the space provided for response is insufficient,
attach additional response to this form.
1. RELATIONSHIP OF STRUCTURE TO SITE
A. The site should be planned to accomplish a desirable transition with the streetscape and to
provide for adequate landscaping, and pedestrian movement.
B. Parking and service areas should be located, designed, and screened.to moderate the visual
impact of large paved areas.
C. The height and scale of each building should be considered in relation to it site.
RESPONSE:
The fact that the site is angular to Interurban Avenue and the building is set
back over 150' from the front property line helps lessen any visual impacts
and allows additional opportunity for interior landscaping among and around
interior parking and loading dock area. The height of the building varies
and the elevation plays . on mass /void with glass areas, recesses and jogs
yet is tied together with reveals and color.
2. RELATIONSHIP OF STRUCTURE.AND SITE TO ADJOINING AREA
A. Harmony in texture, lines, and masses is encouraged.
B. Appropriate landscape transition to adjoining properties should be provided.
C. Public buildings and structures should be consistent with the established neighborhood
character.
D. Compatibility of vehicular pedestrian circulation patterns and loading facilities in terms of
safety, efficiency and convenience should be encouraged.
E. Compatibility of on -site vehicular circulation with street circulation should be encouraged.
RESPONSE:
All vehicular access points are away from the intersection of Interurban Avenue
and South 144th which is where the Metro bus stop is located.
The building faces So. 144th St. and the main entry allows for 3 handicap
parking areas to enter without crossing vehicular traffic and is located as
far as possible from the loading and outdoor storage areas. .Landscaping or
site obscuring fence surrounds the site.
,BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
. DESIGN REVIEW APPLI( TION
Page 3
3., LANDSCAPE AND SITE TREATMENT
A. Where existing topographic patterns contribute to beauty and utility of a development, they
should be recognized and preserved and enhanced.
B. Grades of walks, parking spaces, terraces, and other paved areas should promote safety and
provide an inviting and stable appearance.
C: Landscape treatment should enhance architectural features, strengthen vistas and important
axis, and provide shade.
D. In locations where plants will be susceptible to injury by pedestrian or motor traffic,
mitigating steps should be taken.
E. Where building sites limit planting, the placement �f trees or shrubs in paved areas is encour-
aged. •
F. Screening of service yards, and other places which tend to be unsightly,should be accom-
plished by use of walls, fencing, planting or combinations of these. Screening should be
effective in winter and summer.
G. In areas where general planting will not prosper, other materials such as fences, walls, and
pavings of wood, brick, stone, or gravel may be used.
H. Exterior lighting, when used, should enhance the building design and the adjoining land-
scape. Lighting standards and fixtures should be of a design and size compatible with the
building and adjacent area. Lighting should be shielded, and restrained in design. Excessive
brightness and brilliant colors should be avoided.
RESPONSE:
• The use of street trees and landscaping along Interurban Avenue Were ,used to
s.creen.the parking area from the street. Shade trees throughout the parking
area are for shade and and also to break up the parking area.
Smaller scale planting is used in more people like spaces, for example entry,
riverside and patio. Cleaning up the river bank to enhance its scenic value.
Landscaping is used against the building facade to break up wall areas and
soften surfaces:
4. BUILDING DESIGN
A. Architectural style is not restricted, evaluation of a project should be based on quality of its
design and relationship to surroundings.
B. Buildings should be to appropriate scale and be in harmony with permanent neighboring de-
velopments.
1
BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW •
. ,DESIGN REVIEW APPLI( TION
Page 4
C. Building components - such as windows, doors, eaves, and parapets - should have good pro-
portions and relationship to one another. Building components and ancillary parts shall be
consistent with anticipated life of the structure.
D. Colors should be harmonious, with bright or brilliant colors used only for accent.
E. Mechanical equipment or other utility hardware on roof, ground or buildings should be
screened from view.
F. Exterior lighting should be part of the architectural concept. Fixtures, standards and all ex-
posed accessories should be harmonious with building design.
G. Monotony of design in single or multiple buildings projects should be avoided. Variety of
detail, form, and siting should be used to provide visual interest.
RESPONSE:
All building componenets are of industry standards and consistent with other
similar projects in the area, painted, rusticated concrete, te,xtured dryvit
and colored glass. Design quality is comparable with Fairway Center, the
only recent project in this area. Neighboring projects have no.architectual
relationship to each other or significant design feature worth repeating.
5. MISCELLANEOUS STRUCTURES AND STREET FURNITURE
A. Miscellaneous structures and street furniture should be designed to be part of the architec-
tural concept of design and landscape. Materials should be compatible with buildings, scale
should be appropriate, colors should be in harmony with buildings and surroundings, and
proportions should be to scale.
B. Lighting in connection with miscellaneous structures and street furniture should meet the
guidelines applicable to site, landscape and buildings.
RESPONSE:
New sidewalk along Interurban South and install new Metro bus stop to Metro
standards. A lighted walk for Interurban Avenue is provided to the river.
for public and private use.
. BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
. ',DESIGN REVIEW APPLIF '\TION
INTERURBAN SPECIAL REVIEW DISTRICT
Page 5
The following six criteria are used in the special review of the Interurban area in order to manage
the development of this area, to upgrade its general appearance, to provide incentives for
compatible uses, to recognize and to capitalize on the benefits to the area of the amenities including
the Green River and nearby recreational facilities, to encourage development of more people -
oriented use, and to provide for development incentives that will help to spur growth. Please
describe how your proposed development relates to the goals for this District. Use additional
response space, if necessary.
1. The proposed development design should be sensitive to the natural amenities of the area.
The natural amenity of the area is the Green River. The desi.gn meets or
exceeds the standard required for similar type development.
2. The proposed development use should demonstrate due regard for the use and enjoyment
of public recreational areas and facilities.
Public recreation is the Green River. This projects provides access to `.
and a trail along the river.and pedestrian trail.
3. The proposed development should provide for safe and convenient on -site pedestrian circu-
lation.
On site pedestrian circulation per code and similar to industry standards
of similar projects.
4. The proposed property use should be compatible with neighboring uses and complementary
to the district in which it is located.
The business of the project is compatible with neighborhood zoning and designed
to upgrade the physical appearance of the site.
5. The proposed development should seek to minimize significant adverse environmental im-
pacts.
All reasonable precautions will be taken such as preventing:runoff, minimizing
paving areas, etc.
6. The proposed development should demonstrate due regard for significant historical features
in the area.
The only historical feature is the Green River and the park across the river.
Setback from and access to the river for viewing is provided.
A P P I u A V x T or D I S T RB U T I O N
,Notice of Public Hearing
O Notice of Public Meeting
fl Board of Adjustment Agenda
Packet
hereby declare that:
ODetermination of Non-
significance
Mitigated Determination of
Nonsignificance
Determination of Significance.
and Scoping Notice.
O Board of Appeals Agenda fl Notice of Action.
Packet •
Planning Commission Agenda U Official Notice
Packet
Short Subdivision Agenda fl 0ther
Packet
D Notice of Application for Other
Shoreline Management Permit
flShoreline Management Permit
was mailed to each of the following addresses on
Name of Project 6 «' DWO6?1/14eill4-Signature
File Number 1,04 ' Od ( X
City of Tukwila
Department of Community Development
City of Tukwila
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
John W. Rants, Mayor
Rick Beeler, Director
Notice is hereby given that the City of Tukwila Planning Commission and Board of Architectural Review will
be holding a public hearing on May 26, 1994 at 7:00 p.m. located at 6200 Southcenter Blvd. to discuss the
following:
CASE NUMBER:
APPLICANT:
REQUEST:
LOCATION:
CASE NUMBER:
APPLICANT:
REQUEST:
LOCATION:
BOARD OF ARCHTTECTURAL REVIEW PUBLIC HEARING
L94 -0012: GT Development
Robert Fadden, Lance Mueller & Assoc.
An addition to an industrial building with additional parking and
landscaping.
6437 S. 144th Street, Tukwila.
L94 -0017: Gateway #9
SGA Corporation
Construct a 2 -story 25,400 sq. ft. industrial/office building with 45
parking spaces.
Northwest 1/4 of the E. Marginal Way S./S. 116th Street intersection
PLANNING COMMISSION AND BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW PUBLIC
HEARING
CASE NUMBER:
APPLICANT:
REQUEST:
LOCATION:
L94 -0019: Strander Retail Center sign approval
Segale Business Park
Planning Commission approval of increased sign area for four tenant
signs (per TMC 19.32.150) and Board of Architectural Review approval
of sign design for 10 tenants (per L93- 0016).
Southeast 1/4 of the Strander /Andover Pk. W. intersection.
in Tukwila.
Persons wishing to comment on the above cases may do so by written statement or by appearing at the public
hearing. Information on the above cases may be obtained at the Tukwila Planning Division. The City
encourages you to notify your neighbors and other persons you believe would be affected by the above items.
Published:
Distribution:
Seattle Times
May 13, 1994
Mayor, City Clerk, Property Owners /Applicants, Adjacent Property
Owners, File.
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 •. (206) 431-3670 Fax (206) 431-3665
336590- 1701 -04
ENGSTROM DONALD
6238 S 143rd PL
TUKWILA WA
336590 - 1715 -08
HINKSON LESLIE
6411 S 143rd ST
SEATTLE WA
336590 - 1365 -01
SAGHI JAMES M.
1101 GREEN ST SUITE 1602
SAN FRANCISCO CA
336590 - 1380 -02
CITY OF TUKWILA
6200 SOUTHCENTER BLVD
TUKWILA WA
336590- 1395 -05
METRO LAND DEVELOPMENT INC
PO BOX 88050
TUKWILA WA
.336590- 1605 -01
SANFT LOUIE .
6120 52nd AVE S
SEATTLE WA
336590- 1405 -03
METRO LAND DEVELOPMENT INC
PO BOX 88050
TUKWILA WA
0579
98168
079999
98168
6N9999
94109
7N9800
98188
336590 - 1650 -05
JONES ELMER R
40533 196th AVE SE
ENUMCLAW WA
336590- 1680 -09
KNUDSON GERALD
6421 SO 143rd PL
TUKWILA WA
336590- 1700 -05
ENGSTROM D
6238 S 143rd PL
TUKWILA WA
336590- 1710 -03
ENGSTROM DONALD
6238 S .143rd PL
TUKWILA WA
336590- 1720 -01
R0576 BURKE ROBERT
C/O BERT -WELL INDUSTRIES INC.
98188 7848 S 202nd ST
KENT WA
336590- 1721 -00
429999 STRAY FREDERICK M & FRANCES
12805 NE 80th ST
98118 KIRKLAND WA
R0576
98188
336590- 1756 -08
SANFT LOUIE.
6120 52nd AVE S
SEATTLE WA
}
901366
98022
749999
98188
Z1077
98168
0579
98188
913940
98032
K989999
98033
'429999
336590-1790-06
SANFT LOUIE
6120 52nd AVE S
SEATTLE WA
336590 - 1851 -02
HARTONG LLOYD
5715 S 147th
TUKWILA WA
429999
98118
E0681"
98168
336590- 1795 -01
SANFT LOUIE
6120 52nd S
SEATTLE WA
336590 - 1835 -03
FOUTY EDITH A
6426 S 144th
TUKWILA WA
336590- 1845 -01
KNUDSON JERRY
14062 INTERURBAN AVE SO.
TUKWILA WA
336590- 1847 -09
HARTONG LLOYD
5715 S 147th
TUKWILA WA
359700 - 0005 -08
KIM YOUNG I +JAE K
5015 DOVER ST
EVERETT WA
359700 - 0023 -06
SAGHI JAMES M
1101 GREEN ST SUITE 1602
SAN FRANCISCO WA
232304 -9001 -02 •
KING COUNTY
500 4th AVE
SEATTLE WA
429999
98118
C1077
98168
8D9999
98188
E0681
98168
361237
98203
6N9999
94109
0381
98133
336590 - 1370 -04
D T & C
P.O. BOX 81247
SEATTLE WA
336590- 1390 -00
SIX STAR LIMITED
14501 INTERURBAN AVE S
TUKWILA WA
336590 - 1400 -08
METRO LAND DEVELOPMENT INC
P.O. BOX 88050
TUKWILA WA
336590 - 1415 -01
SEGALE MARIO A
18010 S CENTER PKWY
TUKWILA WA
226590 - 1630 -00.
SANFT LOUIE
6120 52nd AVE S
SEATTLE WA
336590- 1665 -08
KNUDSON GERALD C
GREEN RIVER CONST. INC.
14062 INTERURBAN AVE S
TUKWILA WA
336590- 1690 -07
EQUITIES NW INC
6234 S 143rd PL
TUKWILA WA
7N9800
98108
880483
98168
R0576
98188
R0777
98188
429999
98118
ON0639
98188
050846
98168
•
336590- 1757 -07
STUCKEY MARTHA L.
60 CHURCHILL LANE
PORT LUNLOW WA
336590- 1765 -07
DAWES CLYDE W
6439 'S 143rd
TUKWILA WA
336590 - 1775 -05
SANFT LOUIE
6120 52nd AVE S.
SEATTLE WA
336590 - 1810 -02
SANFT LOUIE
6120 52nd AVE S
SEATTLE WA
336590 - 1836 -02
FOUTY WILLIAM A
6423 S 143rd PL
SEATTLE WA
336590- 1846 -00
HARTONG LLOYD
5715 S 147th
TUKWILA WA
3N9999
98365
E
336590 - 1850 -03
KNUDSON LARRY
18056 124th AVE SE
RENTON WA
336590 - 1865 -06
RADOVICH JOHN C
2000 124th AVE NE #B103
BELLEVUE WA
98055
C0580
98005
359700 - 0020 -09'
C0677 HILLCREST APARTMENT ASSOCIA 399999
1522 ALEWA DR
HONOLULU HI
98168
96817
359700- 0024 -05
HILLCREST APARTMENT ASSOCIA 399999
429999 1522 ALEWA DR
HONOLULU HI 96817
98118
98118
98168
E0681
98168
336590- 1758 -06
SANFT ADOLPH & LOUIE
6120 52nd AVE S
SEATTLE WA.
336590 - 1766 -06
SANFT LOUIE
6120 52nd .AVE S
SEATTLE WA
302014
98118
429999.
98118
336590- 1785 -03 •
SANFT LOUIE.
6120 52nd S
SEATTLE WA
429999
BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW PROCESS
Process
Board meets 4th Thursday of month
Board needs a week to review projects
Jack needs a week to review draft staff report.
Report takes a week to draft (ie final submittals must be in at
least a week before draft staff report due)
Submittals
SEPA review and determination is required prior to action taken on
project.
Drawings are required to show:
o stamps of architect /landscape architect
o vicinity map
o property. dimensions
o names of adjacent roads
o lot size /impervious surface calculations
o existing and finished grads
o topo with 2' contours and slopes noted for steep slopes
o locations & dimensions of existing & proposed structures
o accessory structures
o setbacks
o parking & loading dimensions, driveway dimensions
o existing trees
o proposed landscaping - size, speicies, location & spacing
o location & size of utility lines, + source of water & sewer
o location & dimensions of easements or dedications.
o GFA by use for commercial /industrial
o parking calculations
o open space & recreation areas for mf
o building elevations @ 1/8 " =1'
o exterior lighting - location & elevations
o dumpsters - location & dimensions of screening
o color & material sample boards for exteriors of building &
accessory structures
o perspective drawing, photographs, color renderings or ? ??
o PMTs of project
o mailing labels with addresses within 300'
o KC Assessor's map that shows above ,
lance mueller
& associates
architects
March 10, 1994
Mr. Rick Beeler
Dir. of Dept. of Community Dev.
CITY OF TUKWILA
6200 Southcenter Blvd.
Tukwila, Washington 98188
Re: GT DEVELOPMENT
Dear Rick:
MAR 1 3 1994
COM;VIUNi j Y
DEVELOPMENT
On April 29, I spoke with you about GT Development hopes to expand their operation in
Tukwila at the existing location. GT is a local manufacturing company that makes value
added parts for the transportation industry. They are currently located at South 144th
Street in a building of their own and lease space in another building across the street.
They currently employ 80 people, who mostly work in assembly operations. Their 5 year
business plan requires expansion into a 60,000* s.f. facility that will employ up to 150
people in two shifts. This growth is based on their steady increase in production of their
products.
In order for them to continue their business in Tukwila they must consolidate their
operation and be able to expand those operations. This expansion work must be
substantially complete prior to November 1994. A concentrated and accelerated
construction program can meet this schedule if a building permit is issued no later than
July 16, 1994.
According to my phone conversation with Jack Pace of your staff, if we filed a complete
application for shoreline permit, B.A.R., etc. February 25, we would be able to receive
approvals on May 26. Forty five days after that it would be possible for a building permit
to be issued.
In Spring 1993 we met with planning staff and reviewed a conceptual development plan
for the GT property and the Interurban property they proposed to purchase. This plan
was developed based on shoreline development set back and goals, the parking required
by code and other City of Tukwila requirements, along with site constraints.
The governing criteria in laying out this plan was the need to keep the existing facility
operational with a minimum of disruption during the new construction.
After our initial meeting we prepared several site studies. Based on these, we proposed a
site scheme that best addressed all concerns. Like all projects, this scheme represents
compromises but will work in the best interest of the client and the community.
130 lakeside • suite 250 • ssattls, washington 98122 • 202 / 325.2553 • fax: X206) 328.0554
lance mueller ale, cal • senior essoclates: robart olschewsky, ellesn furney
latest robart hidden, michael galbralth, rlchsrd hsrnish, robart walls
a washington corporstlon furnishing architectural services by and under the supervision of registered architects
lance mueller
& associates
architects
March 10, 1994
Mr. Rick Beeler
Dir. of Dept. of Community Dev.
CITY OF TUKWILA
Page Two
In June 1993 we formally filed this plan with the City and had a preapplication meeting
with the City staff. At this meeting the staff presented us with development criteria and
other code requirements. Subsequent to that meeting we have prepared a transportation,
report, river bank stability study and recommendation, soils report, level one study and
code review.
All of this information has been prepared by consultants that the City is familiar with and
based on methods the City has accepted in the past. The plans that we have currently
prepared reflect the previous input from the City at the preapplication. The architectural
quality of this project is comparable with the Fairway Center project several blocks to the
north that the City previously approved. This was designed by our firm.
On Friday, March 1, 1994, we filed with the City an application for shoreline permit,
design review and substantial development with supplemental materials previously
requested. These were materials the City asked for prior to application to ensure a
expedient review. According to check lists furnished by the City we believe this
application is complete. It has now been 12 days since then and we have not received
any phone calls from the City indicating any additional materials are necessary. Based
on this, we must assume the application is complete and is being processed.
It is imperative to GT that they be assured by the City that they can meet the permit dead
line. If the City cannot meet this permit date, GT may need to look outside the City for a
new location. I have told them, based on the high level of cooperation and staff attention
that the City gave Emerald Racing at the Segale Business Park site, that the City does
have the ability to perform in behalf of the community's best interest in the needed time
frame.
In order for the building, planning, and engineering departments to be able to complete
their plan reviews prior to July 16th permit issue, they will need to receive permit drawings
many weeks prior to that date.
Based on past projects, a building permit application needs to be made by May first in
order to insure sufficient processing time. This means that our firm will need to start final
construction drawings on April first. In order for that to happen we need to receive any
additional input from the planning department prior to April first along with a: letter from
130 lakeside • suite 260 • :wattle, washington 89122 • 208 / 325.2553 • fax: (2003 328.0554
lance mueller ale, cal • senior lateen robart olsehawaky, elleen furney
latest robart faddism, mlchael palbralth, richard hernlah, robart walla
a washington corporation furnishing architectural services by and under the supervision of registered architects
lance mueller
& associates
architects
March 10, 1994
Mr. Rick Beeler
Dir. of Dept. of Community Dev.
CITY OF TUKWILA
Page Three
your office indicating that the City staff will recommend approval of this project to. B.A.R:
and council as submitted. This early determination by the City staff is key to GT
Development for the ability to grow in Tukwila.
As you know, our staff at Lance Mueller & Associates is always available to respond
quickly to any requests for additional information. We are also available on short notice to
meet with you. As previously mentioned. we have worked extensively with studying
options on this site and have arrived at a proposal which meets all major goals. It is
crucial to this project that the City supports this plan as submitted. If you have any
questions about why the plan has been developed as shown, please contact me
personally.
We hope that our project will be able to work quickly through the permitting process as we
have in the past with your staff.
Sincerely,
LANCE MUELLER & ASSOCIATES /ARCHITECTS
eitabi `'�06+6L0a.
Bob Fadden
Associate
BF:nk
cc: Mayor John Rants, City of Tukwila
Bob McGarvey, GT Development
GTDEVLP1.LTR
RECE iVED
MAR 1 01994
COMMuN ! Y
DEVELOPMENT
130 lakeside • suite 860 • wattle. washington 88122 • 206 / 385.2553 • text [206! 326.0554
lance mueller ale, cal • senior sssoolstsst robsrt otschswskv, sllssn furnsy
aseocietsst robert hidden, michsal galbrsith, richard hsrnlsh, robsrt walls
e weshington corporation furnishing amides ctur.I services by and under the supervision of ragl d ■rohitaots
r.. eCM.Pi P*.p.... / 1 ) / ” 1 4 1 1 1 (014 k.. 100 4ww .M.
5035
HAV
18215 72N0 AVENUE SOWN
KENT, WA 98072
(206)251 -6222
8 (206)251 -8782 FAX
•'*.1•401.9•
alt o1GVtWtl. 1AAO AAV«O.
sumac,. IIMMOWNIAL SEMIS
PKIVITY UIC
PROPIRTY
L.[
A
v 5 sr
NwNYy
.v
•
Far:
GT DEVELOPMENT
8437 SOUTH 144TH STREET
TUKWILA, WASHINGTON 08188
SITE SECTIONS AND DETAILS
AT FFVEIeauFUT
00,41,00 If 1:9 Sur..
Vt. 1,0M.I.SOMI
g
1: 5 g1a0g-" y 2''7.ft
" 4i 5 7
A 6T4 gn 4
1 .
,.,- i ! ,1
4
sizsiiiiingsai
I ;1
1' ail
0 .11
(lP l
j X 11 Il
6
/- ............
, TN.
mg Ineu /1 I
) ri
......, ...... .......... / ..... .....
•
(N
,7 \
\ \ X \ 19411
km 4
841.E
Pi
I
111 / I
— —
98
4
go
.0i
59:
V 0) LA A CA
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
"*1 ,1 -v1
VVVVVVV
surca.tc
■141,%..4:
GHA
6036
*a 90
18215 7250 AVENUE SOUTH
KENT, WA 98032
(206)251-6222
(206)251-6792 FAX
avt OCKLI9 4. IMO PI...C.
• SURMISO, EMI108110011 SERVICES
r .
F
0•0 .13.1.311
GT DEVELOPMENT
8437 SOUTH 144TH STREET
TUKWILA, WASHINGTON 98188
TNN:
GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN
DEVELOPUENT
IS
T V)
4 " m
1
45
$' R
Fs�G . • F
SOUTH 144th STREET
4• nn M /.3' to -_ �- 1 ..- •
,N— ski .11,n
4a LE i � " otIA p
.
T G PIP PI
I11_ , _ _ I 1 I' � O�P is
G7
CO
Cj
C.•
1
51';3'•3
2
1Nf100 ON NaVd
NOIld160S30 1V031
dVW 1,11N10I A
SITE PLAN DETAILS _AND_GENERAL_NOTES__
•� LA"C■ MU •LL•• • A••CCIAT••
£
130 LA91510C . WA 9542; • 2011 323 2333
. I4
RENOVATIONS & ADDITIONS
G.T. DEVELOPMENT
TUKWILA, WASHINGTON
2
A
$
yF
SCUTN '44t0 STREET A (' ,
r{
4
O',4, • ='1
i"
vlv v'v`)v :271
It.....n
C�
a
• Op o• ►.� o 1
�,. 01 4
q
36
i
' 554
id 2 z ,, g 2
8 &i t 9' k
a
I '1 /' F Y W
c
,Y f ` g 1
` ' j
9 d ij1
PRELIMIN Rl LANDSCAPE PLAN
r _ Owo
"- w.$Sit * td b)
130 101.49110 • seallle wash. 01122.206 321 2952
RENOVATIONS & ADDITIONS
G.T. DEVELOPMENT
TUKWILA, WASHINGTON
.AN;
G.en9.
dab pa. .o eea date