The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPermit L93-0090 - BEST PRODUCTS - SEPA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENTl93-0090 240 andover park west best products CITY OF TUKWILA y MITIGATL ETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIF: ONCE (MDNS) DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: Conversion of a 101,575 s.f. warehouse into two retail stores with 84,065 s.f. and 230 parking spaces, on a 4.54 acre site. Retail entries to be 40+ ft. high with the remainder of the building to be 24 ft. high and one story. New sidewalks and landscaping will be incorporated. PROPONENT: BEST PRODUCTS CO., INC. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL, INCLUDING STREET ADDRESS, IF ANY: ADDRESS: 240 ANDOVER PK W PARCEL NO: 022310 -0070 SEC /TWN /RNG: NE 1/4 of Section 26, Township 23, Range 4 LEAD AGENCY: CITY OF TUKWILA FILE NO: L93 -0090 The City has determined that the proposal does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21c.030(2)(c). This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public on request. The conditions to this SEPA Determination are attached. TIG s DNS ys issued under 197 -11- 340(2). Comments must be submitted by ,4 The lead agency will not act on this T proposa 15 days from the date below. L.` Responsible Beeler, Res onsible Official Date ;r72 City of Tukwila, (206) 431 -3680 6300 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 You may appeal this determination to the City Clerk at City Hall, 6200 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 no later than 10 days from the above signature date by written appeal stating the basis of the appeal for specific factual objections. You may be required to bear some of the expenses for an appeal. Copies of the procedures for SEPA appeals are available with the City Clerk and Department of Community Development. City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Rick Beeler, Director City of Tukwila • PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE Notice is hereby given that the City of Tukwila Planning Commission and Board of Architectural Review will be holding a public hearing on March 24, 1994 at 7:00 p.m. located at 6200 Southcenter Blvd. to discuss the following: BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW PUBLIC HEARING CASE NUMBER: L93 -0091: Best APPLICANT: Howard Turner REQUEST: Remodel the existing 101,575 sq. ft. of wholesale /office uses in the Seattle Fur Exchange building into 84,065 s.f. of retail use, with 230 parking spaces. LOCATION: 240 Andover Pk. W., Tukwila, WA. Persons wishing to comment on the above case may do so by written statement or by appearing at the public hearing. Information on the above case 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 item. Published: Seattle Times March 11 and 18, 1994 Distribution: Mayor, City Clerk, Property Owners /Applicants, Adjacent Property Owners, File. 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington .98188 • (206) 4313670 • Fax (206) 4313665. MITIGATED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TRAFFIC: Traffic mitigations are identified in the Transportation Planning & Engineering Report (Reference A.1, pp. 6-7), except as follows: 1. A traffic impact mitigation fee of $26,452 shall be deposited with the City of Tukwila prior to final permit approval. A building permit may be issued to begin construction. This requirement may be offset by item 3, below. 2. The proposed frontal improvements on APW and Strander Boulevard shall be consistent with Tukwila design standards and are subject to City approval. This includes, but is not limited to the following: a. Sidewalks and street trees shall be consistent with the Central Business District Sidewalk Plan (e.g., curb -line sidewalks and no birch trees) b. Specific designs shall be coordinated with frontal improvements being built on Strander Boulevard and Andover Park West as part of the Segale Retail Center development (eg., road widening, lane channelization, and street tree selection). 3. The existing traffic signal pole in the northeast corner of the APW/Strander intersection shall be moved to another location, as set forth in City plans for widening this intersection. Up to the $26,452 due as a traffic mitigation fee shall be used to reimburse the applicant for the cost of this relocation. Design and signal head alignment are subject to City approval. 4. A 7x18 foot concrete pad for a future Metro bus shelter shall be installed by the applicant adjacent to the new sidewalk on Andover Park West. This pad's location along APW shall be determined by the Public Works Department prior to issuance of permits. METRO shall reimburse the applicant for the cost of pad construction. 5. The proposed driveway location on APW shall minimize turning conflicts up to and including a possible restriction on left turn movements, and /or a possible requirement for shared, future driveway access with the property to the north. The driveway's location and its turning movements shall be based on an acceptable queuing study provided by the applicant and augmented by other City information. The location and movements shall be confirmed by the Public Works Department during the permit review process. (Reference D.1) 6. By the time of issuance of permits the applicant shall provide evidence of a recorded agreement with McConkey that establishes rights for truck maneuvering on McConkey's property (Reference C.1). Such agreement shall provide for continuous maneuvering rights as long as the loading bays at the northeast corner of the building are in operation. Tzla,`,i«`&2:A'v r v . x7 1 a.y vg:; e.y.FvN:Y'n Yim2 a .r. .. ea'r.J;. ;rat .-T-f t'+mrgre, MIj? n'P,# :r, ,'i8 ., 4: a' C1. 3?. i` n« i:.: 3 ; 3. 2: s: S' ,t.4 .s. &:.n. f+i}•7:'> a t2v 3. 5?. fi. P, ._ nr S f2$ a' it frJF ,.C.A!YS,mi:4eS:...,, ... ,...,.:.a- G' tttcr.. h` YJ ,nii:.:i.,...,n ,n. Fi3t15 '.et DRAINAGE: Drainage for the parking and loading area shall include the use of coalescing plate oil/water separators as a water - quality mitigation for storm water runoff from increased parking and loading areas. (Reference A, Section B.3.d) WATER:. Applicant agrees to participate in a Local Improvement District for upgrading the waterlines in Strander Boulevard and Andover Park West to mitigate for increased water demand. The applicant retains the right to protest the cost. SOILS: Applicant agrees to provide an erosion and siltation control plan at the time of submittal for grading permits. City of Tukwila Department of Community Development PROJECT: DATE: PROPOSAL: LOCATION: APPLICANT: LEASEE: FILE REFERENCE: THRESHOLD DETERMINATION: CITY OF TUKWILA MITIGATED DETERMINATION OF NON - SIGNIFICANCE BEST Products Company Remodel March 8, 1994 John W. Rants, Mayor Rick Beeler, Director To convert an existing warehouse into a 84,124 square foot retail facility with approximately 230 spaces of parking. Northeast corner of Strander and Andover Park West Turner & Associates, AIA BEST Products Company, Inc. L93 -0090 This is a Mitigated Declaration of Non-Significance. 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 4313665 Best L93 -0090 MDNS Page 2 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW RECORD The environmental review of this proposal consists of an analysis based on the following documents included in the environmental record: References: A. SEPA checklist submitted by Howard Turner dated December 18, 1993. The checklist contains additional reports: 1. Report from Transportation Planning and Engineering (TP &E) dated December 20, 1993 in regard to project - generated traffic and its impacts an the city's street system. 2. Letter from Bush, Roed and Hitchings dated December 18, 1993 in regard to drainage analysis. B. Drawings: Architectural BAR1 BAR2 BAR3 BAR3A BAR4 BART (Turner & Assoc., dated Mar 4, 1994) Cover sheet Site Plan 1 /16th Elevations Lighting diagram for elevations 1 /8th Elevations & Plans (Colored) Perspectives Civil (Bush Roed & Hitchings, dated Dec 16, 1993) BARS Schematic grading and utility plan Survey ALTA land title survey (June 1991) Landscape (Landplan, PS, dated March 4, 1994) BAR6 Landscape site plan C. Correspondence 1. Copy of letter dated December 7, 1993 from Fredrick W. McConkey to Roger Scott indicating agreement to provide a cross - easement with the Seattle Fur Exchange Building (BEST Products Company) to allow BEST & other retailer's trucks to nose into the McConkey property in order to maneuver into the new building's loading bays. Best L93 -0090 MDNS D. Incorporated checklist analyses L92 -0047 (Computer City), EPIC 11 -91 (Mervyn's) DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL (Checklist Section All, p3) Page 3 The applicant proposes to remodel the existing Seattle Fur Exchange Building into a retail center for two tenants, occupying 84,065 square feet on a 4.54 acre site. Uses would be for general retail sales. The existing structure presently contains 101,575 square feet. Approximately 18,365 square feet of this structure would be demolished to provide more area for parking and loading. With the exception of the 40+ foot high retail entries, the facility would remain a one -story structure, approximately 24 feet in height. The building's facade would be extensively remodeled to provide two customer entries, covered walkways, three loading bays, and an enclosed service bay. Parking would be for approximately 230 vehicles, of which less than 30 percent would be for compact cars. Customer parking would be between the structure and the adjacent arterial streets. Five existing driveways would be consolidated into three access points. New paving and landscaping are part of the proposed remodel. Both Andover Park West and Strander Boulevard are planned to be widened to accommodate additional traffic. A sign permit will be submitted separately. PRINCIPAL CHECKLIST ITEMS The following information shall supplement and, in the case of conflict, supersede information contained in the Environmental Checklist. TRANSPORTATION (Checklist section B14, p.14 & Reference A.1) Existing arterial facilities Andover Park West (APW) is currently a four -lane arterial with curb, gutter, street lights and sidewalk along most sections of the roadway. There is no sidewalk along the project's frontage. A road widening project will occur shortly on the southerly leg of the intersection, as part of the recently- approved Segale Retail Center. The BEST project will require a continuation of the road widening project to the north of the intersection. Part of this widening will require relocation of the existing traffic signal pole presently located at the northeast corner of the intersection with Strander. Best L93 -0090 MDNS Page 4 Strander Boulevard is a multi -lane east -west arterial connecting Southcenter Parkway with West Valley Highway. Strander includes a two -way left-turn lane between Southcenter Parkway and Andover Park West. East of this intersection (which is at the proposed site) the street is striped for four lanes. Curb, gutter and street lights have been installed along the entire length of the street. There is no sidewalk along the project's frontage. A road widening project will also occur shortly on the easterly leg of the intersection, and is part of the conditions for construction of the recently- approved Segale Retail Center. Segale will be relocating the present traffic signal pole at the Southeast corner of the intersection with APW. However, the BEST project will require widening the north side of Strander to the project's property line. Key intersection. The intersection of Strander Boulevard and Andover Park West (APW) is operating at a level of service "E" during the Noon peak hour. (Reference: P.7, Traffic Impact Analysis, Segale Retail Site, Hamlin and Associates, January and May 1993. See City of Tukwila file #L93 - 0016). This condition is primarily due to the lack of left -turn storage lanes on APW. With the proposed additional traffic, but with no improvements, the present configuration of Strander and APW will operate at a level of service "F'. This deficiency will be eliminated by widening and incorporating left turn lanes on APW, and on Strander. The resulting level of service is projected to be "D." Project access. Analysis of traffic movements on Strander and APW indicates the need for protected left -turn lanes from these arterials into the proposed facility. If left -turn lanes are constructed on the adjacent arterials, the level of service of service at the site's access driveways is projected to be "D." (Reference A.1.. TP &E Dec 20, 1993 appendices pp. 3,4,6,9,12,15, &18) Queue analysis. Table 2 needs to be validated based on a queue analysis on Andover Park West. Existing observed queuing does not seem to support LOS A at that driveway. Given the documented levels of service and existing congestion created by left turning movements into and from properties at this intersection, a report should be prepared to address the queuing needed for left hand turns from southbound Andover Park West to eastbound Strander. The report should use this analysis to recommend a driveway location and to analyze left turning movements in the vicinity of the BEST driveway on APW. Parking. The proposed 230 spaces exceed City requirements. Public transit. An existing Metro bus stop is located on Andover Park West adjacent to BEST's main retail entrance. Best L93 -0090 MDNS Page 5 Metro ridership is expected to increase with additional retail and employment activities in this area. City policies encourage use of buses in order to reduce the impacts on intersections and in order to provide alternative forms of transportation. Without increases to such ridership, mitigation payments would be higher. The applicant has agreed to allow a bus passenger pad, while METRO has agreed to reimburse the applicant for the cost of pad construction. Loading and Service Access. Trucks serving the proposed retail center will enter the site from Strander Boulevard via the eastern driveway. As described in the McConkey letter (Reference C.1), there is an agreement between BEST and McConkey to permit trucks servicing the building to pull northeast into the adjacent McConkey development. This would allow the trucks to subsequently back into the loading bays located at the project's northeast corner. Trucks will then be able to pull out and proceed south back out to Strander without additional backing movements. WATER. (Checklist Section B16, p.15) The Tukwila Water Comprehensive Plan shows a deficiency in waterline velocities on Strander and Andover Park West. This is the same issue as at the nearby Computer City (L92 -0047) which demonstrated the increased water demand of retail uses over warehouse uses, and Mervyn's (EPIC 11 -91) which demonstrated a water system deficiency in this area. DRAINAGE. (Checklist Section B3.c., p.7) The site lies some 660 feet from Tukwila Pond, and is approximately 1320 feet from the Green River. Intensive commercial uses separate the BEST project site from these two water bodies. As described in the Bush, Roed Hitchings report (Reference A.2), drainage collection will consist of a system of 12" pipes and a separator vault which then discharge into the city's existing 10" diameter storm drain pipe. This 10" dimension acts as a restriction to control the additional volume of storm water resulting from the increased amount of parking area on the site. A pump may be necessary to drain the area of the loading dock in the northeast corner of the site. Development of the site should not have an adverse impact on the downstream system (Reference A.2,(BR &H) p.2). Enhancement. Low -flow treatment of this storm water will be by a coalescing plate oil/water separator. Roof drainage will be piped around the separator. All site drainage will then be discharged to the existing "tightline" systems in Strander Boulevard (Reference A.2). SOILS. (Checklist Section Bi. c &d. p.4) The site lies in a seismic hazard area as depicted on the City's sensitive area maps. The applicant notes there are no surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity. "The existing building is constructed on conventional spread footings and shows no sign of differential settlement after more than 11'4,1%; 7.; •.h(b:.5 ;`a }L' %. ^:r,.f;:5 ++; ... . .ri,..,., . T'als M:d.. Best L93 -0090 MDNS Page 6 twenty years." The applicant further notes "medium dense to dense, silty sand and clean sand are reported in a 11/6/93 soils report performed for the adjacent[sic] Computer City project." CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Issuance of a Mitigated Determination of Non - Significance is appropriate. The environmental review indicates that if substantive mitigating measures are taken, no probability of significant adverse environmental impacts will occur from the proposal. Traffic: The proposal's traffic study shows that furniture and specialty shop uses will generate 2,405 daily trips of which there will be 219 afternoon peak hour trips, and approximately 241 noon peak hour trips. These figures are offset by trips due to the present use of the building, which reduce the net new daily trips to 1,006, and the net additional PM peak and noon peak to 71 and 78 respectively. The traffic study (Reference A.1, with modifications marked by and *, below) demonstrates that five intersections will be impacted by peak hour traffic from the project. Impacts and pro -rata share costs for improvements are as follows: Project Pro -rata Project Intersection 2010 increase $ /trip Cost Southcenter Pkwy. @ Strander 20 $140. $2,800 Andover Park West @ Strander 31 $317 9,827 Andover Park East @ Strander 15 $135 2,025 S. 180th Street @ State Route 181 8 $475 3,800* W. Valley Hwy./ @Southcenter Blvd. 8 $1,000 8,000* TOTAL $26,452 * Contribution is now required for all Central Business District Noon peak hour trips and PM peak hour trips elsewhere, as set forth in the Transportation Element section of Tukwila's Comprehensive Plan. Previously, volumes less than 10, and in certain cases five trips, were not included in the mitigation calculations. • ai i';i; 11 :;6 .1* : \°F. nl'�`Y.3 ;.7Ar.l.Y.'Li';..b?t�tr."u`t kn .:• b'ir`+M'...J:als:�s:2s +c'.;.c:w ? z�r; �y2v: yi�xs .::a�'i�.�Y:S:4:4SFE'.?w'�iVx '1^dk�h:: Best L93 -0090 MDNS a,c3S�tr.�cx vatmvY'i*.t;2.ti:.fiY " :417nfs;+ Page 7 Installation of sidewalk, curb, and gutter on Strander and Andover Park West as part of the project will mitigate pedestrian safety issues here. Such improvements are being coordinated with ones being made for the adjacent Segale Retail center. Driveway location and queue analysis remains to be addressed for APW. Revisions to this driveway or its location on APW are anticipated to be resolved during the permit review process. Continued use of the Metro bus stop at this location is necessary, and provisions should be made to accommodate increased ridership at the time the BEST project is completed. Drainage: Stormwater designs using a coalescing plate oil/water separator for treatment are in accordance with City plans. Water. A Local Improvement District will provide for the additional waterline to correct the deficiency in velocities. Sewer. Existing sewer is adequate. Soils: Given this project is a remodel of an existing structure, there are no additional requirements needed. • Best L93 -0090 MDNS MITIGATED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Page 8 TRAFFIC: Traffic mitigations are identified in the Transportation Planning & Engineering Report (Reference A.1, pp. 6-7), except as follows: 1. A traffic impact mitigation fee of $26,452 shall be deposited with the City of Tukwila prior to final permit approval. A building permit may be issued to begin construction. This requirement may be offset by item 3, below. 2. The proposed frontal improvements on APW and Strander Boulevard shall be consistent with Tukwila design standards and are subject to City approval. This includes, but is not limited to the following: a. Sidewalks and street trees shall be consistent with the Central Business District Sidewalk Plan (e.g., curb -line sidewalks and no birch trees) b. Specific designs shall be coordinated with frontal improvements being built on Strander Boulevard and Andover Park West as part of the Segale Retail Center development (eg., road widening, lane channelization, and street tree selection). 3. The existing traffic signal pole in the northeast corner of the APW /Strander intersection shall be moved to another location, as set forth in City plans for widening this intersection. Up to the $26,452 due as a traffic mitigation fee shall be used to reimburse the applicant for the cost of this relocation. Design and signal head alignment are subject to City approval. 4. A 7x18 foot concrete pad for a future Metro bus shelter shall be installed by the applicant adjacent to the new sidewalk on Andover Park West. This pad's location along APW shall be determined by the Public Works Department prior to issuance of permits. METRO shall reimburse the applicant for the cost of pad construction. 5. The proposed driveway location on APW shall minimize turning conflicts up to and including a possible restriction on left turn movements, and /or a possible requirement for shared, future driveway access with the property to the north. The driveway's location and its turning movements shall be based on an acceptable queuing study provided by the applicant and augmented by other City information. The location and movements shall be confirmed by the Public Works Department during the permit review process. (Reference D.1) 6. By the time of issuance of permits the applicant shall provide evidence of a recorded agreement with McConkey that establishes rights for truck maneuvering on [ L1,.< YbtuPie., 1M.: Y7 l.•. VLLw.+ x�Tr�e41,. m' IUauAr: rvrx' MrIWwH�w+: nM wawirur�w�wr+ w' �Yb+++ N.v+ n�vn: lYtn� U�YJtAIY M+LL1'*a.!t'YYIA4u 427n:Yi'•itut T11.1911 "7.0. FITl>iro:'?LG6YSl Best L93 -0090 MDNS Page 9 McConkey's property (Reference C.1). Such agreement shall provide for continuous maneuvering rights as long as the loading bays at the northeast corner of the building are in operation. DRAINAGE: Drainage for the parking and loading area shall include the use of coalescing plate oil/water separators as a water - quality mitigation for storm water runoff from increased parking and loading areas. (Reference A, Section B.3.d) WATER: Applicant agrees to participate in a Local Improvement District for upgrading the waterlines in Strander Boulevard and Andover Park West to mitigate for increased water demand. The applicant retains the right to protest the cost. SOILS: Applicant agrees to provide an erosion and siltation control plan at the time of submittal for grading permits. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Purpose of Checklist: The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), chapter 43.21C RCW, requires all governmental agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) must be prepared for all proposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to provide information to help you and the agency identify impacts from your proposal (and to reduce or avoid impacts. from the proposal, if it can be done) and to help the agency decide whether an EIS is required. Instruction for Applicants: This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. The City uses this checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant, requiring preparation of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly, with the most precise information known, or give the best description you can. You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. In most cases, you should be able to answer the questions from your own observations or project plans without the need to hire experts. If you really do not know the answer, or if a question does not apply to your proposal, write "do not know" or "does not apply ". Complete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later. Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning, shoreline, and landmark designations. Answer these questions if you can. If you have problems, the City staff can assist you. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The City may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact. Use of checklist for nonproject proposals: Nonproject proposals refer to actions which are different or broader than a single site specific development project, such as plans, policies and programs. Complete this checklist for nonproject proposals, even though questions may be answered "does not apply." In addition, complete the supplemental sheet for nonproject actions (part D). For nonproject actions, the references in the checklist to the words "project," "applicant," and "property or site" should read as "proposal," "proposer," and "affected geographic area," respectively. Control No. Epic File No. 4- 4 -I -0 0 Fee $225.00 Receipt No. Wa-3 !A , `t,99; COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 74.:1.74,7::71//7 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: Best Products Co. Inc. Remodel of existing warehouse 2. Name of applicant: Best Products Co. Inc. POBox 26303 Richmond, VA 23260 -6303 phone (804) 261 -2383 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: Turner & Associates 18420 28th Pl. N.E. Seattle , WA 98155 phone (206) 365 -7431 4. Date checklist prepared: December 18, 1993 5. Agency requesting Checklist: City of Tukwila 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): Grading and demolition is anticipated to start in the early part of 1994, and the remodeling and ongoing site improvements could be complete by fall of 1994. Timing would depend on the City's review process. 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. No. The project would not be extended beyond the project site and is submitted as a "stand alone" retail use intended to meet the City of Tukwila development standards. However, it is expected that a proposal for tenant improvements for the east portion of the building as retail will be filed as soon as a tenant is identified. ..: �.... -. :.rte... 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. - Grading and Utilities Report, dated 12/18/93,Bush Roed and Hitchings, Inc. - Traffic Impact Study, dated 12/18/93, Transportation,Planning, and Engineering, Inc. - Design Review Application, Board of Architectural Review. Turner & Associates, dated 12/18/93. 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for government approval of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. No. 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal. Board of Architectural Review Approval Building Permit 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. Section E requires a complete description of the objectives and alternatives of your proposal and should not be summarized here. The proposed retail outlet would house a Best Products store and another store where general retail merchandise is sold. The proposed structure would be a remodel of the existing industrial warehouse into two attractive retail stores. 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 applications related to this checklist 240 Andover Park West, Tukwila, WA 13. Does the proposal lie within an area designated on the City's Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan map as environmentally sensitive? No. B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. Earth a. General description of the site (circle one): Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other. r , c. •, +.•v�r� �ci+ ,anti �...n .•s 1�. b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? The project site is level with generally less than a 1% slope. c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland Medium dense to dense,silty sand and clean sand are reported in a 11/6/93 soils report performed for the adjacent Computer City project. d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. No. The existing building is constructed on conventional spread footings and shows no sign of differential settlement after more than twenty years. e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. Significant excavation or fill is not expected to prepare the site for development. The area in front will be cleared of asphalt and regraded to accomodate the parking lot,and the loading area in the rear will, be graded to accommodate the proposed building remodel. Reuse of the existing cut from the landscape area in front is proposed as fill along the south elevation. f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. Yes, soil erosion could occur in connection with the proposed development since a small portion of the site will be stripped of building and asphalt during the construction phase. Even though the site is flat, erosion could occur during rain and/or wind storms that occur during the construction phase of the project. To minimize this potential for soil erosion, site preparation techniques would include temporary detention ponds and filter fences to reduce the impact of water runoff on the surface soil. When construction has been completed landscaping will have been placed on all surfaces not covered with impervious materials. No significant erosion is expected. g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? Approximately 93% of the proposed site is in impervious surfaces. Approximately 7000 sf of landscaping (7 % of the site) is proposed. h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: Earthwork activities should be done during periods of dry weather. Erosion and sedimentation controls such as interceptor swales, straw bale barriers, silt fences and straw mulch for temporary erosion protection of exposed soils should be applied during construction. Stabilized construction entrances and washpads should be installed at the beginning of construction and maintained for the duration of the project. All erosion and sedimentation control measures shall be installed and maintained in accordance with City of Tukwila requirements. 2. Air a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. Development of the site, as proposed, would not result in any significant impacts to existing air quality. The primary impact from development of the purposed project are related to construction activities and future vehicle traffic. Dust generated from grading and construction vehicle activity would be a temporary nuisance in the general area. 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: - Transport of materials on local streets should be controlled to minimize congestion during peak travel times. This would minimize secondary air quality impacts caused by reduced travel times. -Dust produced by construction can be reduced by using a number of techniques. Areas of exposed soils such as storage yards could be sprayed with water, oils, or chemical dust suppressants. Areas that might be exposed for prolonged periods of time should be covered with suitable groundcover to prevent wind erosion. Soil carried out of the construction area by trucks could be minimized by: use of a sawdust mat as a transition zone from the construction site; wheel washing; washing or brushing truck undercarriages; and covering dusty truck loads. For soils that do escape the constructions site on trucks, a daily cleaning program for truck routes would help minimize dust. 4. Plants a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: _ deciduous tree: , maple, aspen, other evergreen tree: , pine, other shrubs 1 grass pasture _ crop or grain wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other _ water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other _ types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? Small areas of landscaping located at the existing building entry will be replaced by similar materials similar quantities in adjacent new landscape planters. c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None known. d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: The existing mature landscaping located in the 10' wide planters along Srander Boulevard and Andover Park West are proposed to be preserved and enhanced with additional plantings. No irrigation is required for this established plant community. 5. Animals a Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other: mammals• deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other: b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None known. c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. No birds are known to use the site as part of a migratory pattern. • 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, salt- water, lakes, ponds, and wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. No. 2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to ' (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. No. 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indi- cate the area of the site that would be affected Indicate the source of fill material. Not applicable. 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diver- sions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities, if known. No. Storm water runoff from the site will be discharged at the naturally occurring locations. 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100 year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. Not Applicable 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and antici- pated volume of discharge. The site would be served with municipal storm lines and no waste material would be discharged into ground water. ( See attached report from Bush, Roed and Hitchings) b. Ground: 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities, if known. No ground water will be withdrawn as a result of this project.( See attached report from Bush, Roed and Hitchings) 2) Describe waste materials that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemi- cals:; 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. The site would be served with municipal sewer lines and no waste material would be discharged into ground water. ( See attached report from Bush, Roed and Hitchings) c. Water runoff (including storm water) : 1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and the 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. Existing buildings and asphalt paving are proposed to be demolished and replaced by new paving and building, resulting in an increase to the existing impervious surface on site. Alterations to the existing storm drainage system will be minimal and it will continue to discharge to the City's storm drains in Strander Boulevard ( See attached report from Bush, Roed and Hitchings) 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. Surface water could be contaminated by runoff containing oil and gas from parked cars on the parking lot and streets servicing the proposal. However, surface water runoff will be directed into a system of catch basins and an oil/water separator prior to discharge to minimize surface water contamination. No storage of hazardous materials on the site is proposed. ( See attached report from Bush, Roed and Hitchings) &Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: As described above, oil/water separators are being proposed. :.-^.} 1c�ttP .FrF.:•�•r4 ^- �.ny.:.V•.v ?1�: A":�"+�T.•i1'� 1,'1 d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: None. 6. Energy and Natural Resources a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc Electrical energy would be used for lighting and power for HVAC, refrigeration, and miscellaneous power equipment. Some heating will be reclaimed heat form refrigeration compressors. Supplemental energy for heat will be natural gas. 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: For the retail portions of the building , energy conservation would consist of an insulated building envelope, HVAC with heat recovery features, automatic energy management system, airlock entrances, energy efficient light fixtures, and minimal use of glass. The State of Washington has adopted model conservation standards for new commercial buildings. Provided the City of Tukwila has adopted these standards, or has no standards conflicting there within, the future development would be consistent with these model standards. 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, des- cribe. No special environmental hazards are known to exist on the site. The retail tenants known at this time use no solvents and chemicals which are considered hazardous. 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. Fire, police, and ambulance services would be required on a basis consistent with any two commercial retail stores of 84,000 square feet . No special services would be required. 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: Mitigation measures are not required. b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? Traffic from adjacent streets may be heard from the interior of the site but will not affect the commercial operations proposed. 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or assoc- ciated with the project on a short-term or long -term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. Sources of noise identified for the development and operation of the remodeled mixed use project are as follows: construction related noise for approximately three months from 7:00 am to 7:00 pm, six days per week; normal traffic generated noise associated with a commercial retail store's and warehouse operations seven days per week; including several large truck deliveries per day. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: Mitigation measures for noise are not necessary since surrounding land uses are generally not noise sensitive. 8 Land and Shoreline Use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? The site of the proposed mixed use project is currently occupied by a 96,157 square foot warehouse building . The surrounding area is generally developed with a mixture of light industrial and retail uses. b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. No. Not in the recent past. c. Describe any structures on the site. The 96,157 square foot industrial building was built using the tilted concrete panel method of construction prevalent in the area. It is fully sprinklered. d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? The southwesterly and northeasterly corners of the building will be demolished, and the concrete wall panels will be relocated. e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? The current zoning classification of the site is C M Industrial Park. The proposed uses are allowed outright. f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? Light Industrial g. If applicable- what is the current shoreline master program desig- nation of the site? Not applicable as the site is located more than 200' from the Green River. h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. No. i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? 60 workers. j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? Forty k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: Not applicable. 1. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with exist- ing and projected land uses and plans, if any: The proposed is a concrete tilt -up structure that is similar in size, design, and scale of the other industrial, warehouse, and commercial buildings north, south, east, and west of the site. The proposed structure would be setback from Strander Boulevard approximately 76 feet and approximately 150 feet from Andover Park West. This setback, the mature 10 foot wide landscaping strip along the public right -of -way, and perimeter landscaping would provide an adequate buffer to retail and service commercial uses to the north, east, west, and south. The type of use proposed is also consistent with land uses adjacent to the east of the site and in the surrounding area. :.r!�.�•ara•s:H,r!r,••. >,rvr,••, �.v+.enrF an .w+.�n•s:v: 9. Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low- income housing? Not applicable. b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low- income housing. Not applicable. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: Not applicable. 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? Theentry portions of building would be +/- 35 feet in height. The remaining building elevations of the proposed structure would be approximately 20 to 25 feet in height. The principle exterior building material would be pre-cast concrete tilt -up panels with a series of offsets, accented with stucco and paint, at the building street facade. b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or ob- structed? The profile of existing building is being compacted, improving views along Strander Boulevard. Other views are not being altered. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: An 15 ' landscaping/sidewalk strip along the public right of way, interior parking lot landscaping, and perimeter landscaping consisting of trees, shrubs and ground cover are proposed. The appearance of the building is being improved. 11. Light and Glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? Exterior lighting for the improvements resulting from the proposed bulk retail development would consist of wall lighting, parking lot lighting with non -glare fixtures, and signage. Any glare that may occur would happen at night. b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? No safety hazards from lighting would occur. The proposed landscaping along Strander Boulevard or Andover Park West will be designed to minimize glare from headlights onto adjacent property c. What existing off -site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? None. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: All outdoor lighting would be shielded and directed downward to minimize potential intrusion on neighboring properties. 12. Recreation a. What designed and informal recreational opportunities are in the . immediate vicinity? No recreational facilities are in the vicinity of the project site. b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses If so, describe. No. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, in- cluding recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: None. 13. Historic and Cultural Preservation a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national, state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. None. b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, arch - eaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. Not applicable. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: Mitigation measures are not required. 14. Transportation a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. See attached traffic report. b. Is the site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? Meto bus routes 240, 340, and 912 stop on the north side of Strander Boulevard. c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? There are currently 132 parking spaces, all of them standard size. The proposal includes 105 stalls,some of them compact. d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improve- ments to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). See attached traffic report. e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. The proposal would not require the use of water, rail, or air transportation to provide goods and services to the site. f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the com- pleted project? If Down, indicate when peak volumes would occur. See attached traffic report. g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: See attached traffic report. 15. Public Servi a. Would the . roject result in an increased need for public services (for examp • fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, o er)? If so, generally describe. The . ' . 'ty in the proposed uses in the area indi that there will be little increase. b. Proposed u to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if • No miti 16. Utilities a. Circle utili electricity, sanitary b. Describe ity providi on the site Sewer: Water: Telep Power: C. Signature The above I understand decision. Signature: Y. tion is required. 'es currently available at the site: rural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, er, septic system, other. e utilities that are proposed for the project, the util- g the service, and the general construction activities r in the immediate vicinity which might be needed ity of Tukwila ity of Tukwila ne: GTNW get Sound Power and Light ers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. the lead agency is relying on them to make its PRELIMINARY REPORT FOR SEATTLE FUR EXCHANGE REMODEL 240 ANDOVER PARK WEST TUKWILA, WA BY BUSH, ROED & HITCHINGS 2009 MINOR AVENUE EAST SEATTLE, WA 98102 (206) 323 -4144 CONTACT: JOHN E. ANDERSON, P.E. DECEMBER 18, 1993 BRH JOB NO. 93283.01 EX?1t'.E S`� INTRODUCTION Best is proposing to re- develop the existing Seattle Fur Exchange site located at the corner of Andover Park West and Strander Boulevard. The building•remodel.will include removing sections of the existing building for a loading dock and creating a straight building line along the south and west face. Site improvements will include street widening on both Andover Park and Strander. Boulevard along with adding parking for the proposed retail store. The site will be graded to improve access into the building for the customers. The proposed site plan would also reduce the number of driveway from five to three. EXISTING CONDITIONS The existing site is approximately 4.5 acres in size. Grades along the east and south side of the building generally slope away from the building. The finish floor elevation is typically higher than the exterior grades so stairs are used to access the building. There are seven catch basins through out the site. Drainage from the catch basin is directed towards the building by 4 inch diameter pipe. It is unclear what happens to the storm water beyond the catch basin structures. The only storm drainage pipe found exiting the site was a 10 inch concrete. This pipe is connected to the Strander Boulevard storm system. Sanitary sewer and fire service connections are provided from Strander Boulevard. The pipes feeding the sprinkler system are located along the south wall of the building. It appears the building has six water meters located in the southwestern landscape area. Another water meter is also located in the northwest corner. There are 8 inch water mains located approximately 8 feet inside the south and west property lines. A gas main is also located just inside the property along the Andover Park frontage. DEVELOPED SITE Grades in the southeast corner of the building will be raised to allow access into the store without using stairs. Along the west side of the building grades will be at approximately the same elevation as the existing parking lot. Therefore stair will be required for the west entrance. Grades within the parking lot have between 1 and 4 percent slopes. The parking lot will be graded to slope away from the building and match into the existing property line elevation. :.f.�..CiizY '1 . unvi.. nn< i+ rnuea vw. �rw..+- a�nrcr: �awicK. r* r�. z. wma;... ocae;+« v+.-. nax. e. uur+,. vcamtrama. eswak. �aansreRa- r. rn, �v.. mrw.. w ,w........»«.«.u..v.uaentrJU3N" I Storm water run off will sheet flow to catch basins located at the edges of the parking lot. The loading dock in the northeast corner of the site will be at the lowest elevation. It is also the longest distance from the Strander Boulevard outfall. A pump will likely be required to drain this area. Storm water run off from the entire site will be conveyed by 12 inch pipe to an oil /water separator vault. The outfall from the vault will be connected to the existing storm pipe within Strander Boulevard. The new site will have a greater impervious surface area. This will result in an increased storm water run off peak. Preliminary calculations indicate the increased peak can be controlled by the additional volume provided in the 12 inch pipe. The existing 10 inch diameter pipe which connects the site drainage system to Strander Boulevard will act as an orifice. Therefore the site development should not have an adverse impact on the downsteam system. SURFACE AREA CALCULATIONS: .EXISTING SITE ROOF AREA CONCRETE WALKS ASPHALT CONCRETE LANDSCAPE AREA 197,610 SF 96,157 SF 1,535 SF 64,165 SF 36,816 SF A weighted run off factor will be calculated for comparison with the new site plan. The following run off factors are used in the calculations: 1. Impervious surface cover 2. Pervious surface cover WEIGHTED RUN OFF FACTOR, C = 0.774 DEVELOPED SITE ROOF AREA CONCRETE WALKS ASPHALT CONCRETE LANDSCAPE AREA C = 0.90 C = 0.20 197,610 SF 83,406 SF 5,592 SF 94,845 SF 13,767 SF WEIGHTED RUN OFF FACTOR, C = 0.851 Compare the 100 year peak rate of discharge into the Strander Boulevard storm drain system assuming the new and existing conditions: I = 3.2 in /hr A = 4.54 acres Q existing = 11.24 cfs Q new = 12.36 cfs Therefore the new site will increase the 100 year storm water run off rate by approximately 1.12 cfs. A rough estimate of the storm . water detention volume required for this increased peak rate can be calculated from the difference in rational peak rate curves. Using this method the volume is approximately 528 cubic feet. The new 12 inch storm drain pipe will provide approximately 840 cubic feet of additional storm water storage volume. Therefore the increased run off rate can be mitigated by the increased storm drainage pipe size. The oil /water separator vault is being proposed for mitigation of the water quality requirements. This method of water quality improvement has been accepted on other projects in this area. Many of the existing sites do not provide any method of, water quality improvement. Therefore the addition of new storm catch basins, storm pipe and oil /water separator vaults at these site will reduce the amount of sediments transported to the downstream system. APE VICTOR H. BISHOP P.E.. President DAVID H. ENGER. P.E., Vice President TRANSPORTATION PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. BEST PRODUCTS c/o Mr. Howard Turner, AIA TURNER AND ASSOCIATES 18420 -24th Pl. N.E. Seattle, WA 98155 2101 - 112th AVENUE N.E., SUITE 110 - BELLEVUE. WASHINGTON 98004 TELEPHONE (206) 455 -5320 FACSIMILE (206) 453 -7180 December 20, 1993 Re: Seattle Fur Exchange Building Remodel Traffic Study Dear Howard: We are pleased to present this traffic impact study for the proposed retail redevelopment project located at 240 Andover Pk. W. in the City of Tukwila. The project proposes to replace the existing 103,049 sq. ft. Seattle Fur Exchange Building (14,650 sq. ft. office, 66,159 sq. ft. storage and 22,240 sq. ft. convention space) with approximately 84,065 sq. ft. retail building. We have visited the project site and surrounding street network, and have prepared this study based on past discussions with Mr. Ron Cameron,P.E., City Engineer of Tukwila on other projects in the site vicinity. This study analyzes the site access driveway intersections .onto both Andover Park W. and Strander Boulevard. The conclusions and recommendations begin on page 6 of this report. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Figure 1 is a vicinity map showing the location of the site and the surrounding street network. Figure 2 shows a preliminary site plan received by TP &E, Inc. The plan consists of 84,065 sq. ft. of total building space, 232 parking stalls with seven handicap stalls, two vehicle accesses onto Strander Blvd. and one vehicle access onto Andover Park West. The eastern driveway onto Strander Blvd. will be used T081593.RPT BEST PRODUCTS December 20, 1993 Page -2- TpE for truck ingress and egress to and from the site. The project is consolidating from five driveway accesses onto the public street network down to three. Full development of the retail project is expected to occur by 1994, therefore 1994 is used as the horizon year for the purposes of this study. EXISTING CONDITIONS Figure 3 shows existing traffic control, number of roadway lanes, number of approach lanes at intersections, and other pertinent information near the project site. The primary roads near the project site are Andover Park W., Andover Park E., Strander Blvd. and Southcenter Parkway. Currently no sidewalks exist along the property's frontage on Andover Pk. W. and Strander Boulevard. Figure 4 shows existing noon peak hour and PM peak hour traffic volumes on Andover Park W. and Strander Blvd. near the project site. These volumes were provided by the City of Tukwila and were collected via road tube count conducted by Trafficount. FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS WITHOUT THE PROJECT Figure 5 shows projected 1994 noon. and PM peak hour traffic volumes without the project. These volumes include the existing traffic volume counts plus background growth. The growth factor used in this report is 2.5% per year, determined from historical traffic volume counts. TRIP GENERATION AND DISTRIBUTION The retail project is expected to generate the vehicular trips during an average weekday and during the AM and PM street traffic peak hours as shown on Table 1. The noon peak hour trip generation (not shown on Table 1) is expected to be approximately 5% to 20% higher depending on location than in the PM peak hour based on existing traffic volume patterns. For analysis purposes we have assumed that the noon peak hour is 10% higher than during the PM peak T081593.RPT BEST PRODUCTS December 20, 1993 Page -3- TpE hour. Therefore, 78 net new noon peak hour trips are projected to occur , seven more trips than during the PM peak hour. The trip generation is calculated using the average trip rates in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation, Fifth Edition, 1991, for Shopping Center (ITE Land Use Code 820), Warehousing (ITE Land Use Code 150), General Office (ITE Land Use Code 710), and Church (ITE Land Use Code 560). The trip generation for the new retail development was estimated using the rate for a center with over 1.6 million square feet. The reason for using the higher square footage is because of the project site's close proximity to the Southcenter Mall. To estimate the trip generation for the existing convention space, the ITE rates for a church were used. The ITE definition for a church is as follows: 'A church is a building providing public worship services, and generally houses an assembly hall or sanctuary, meeting rooms, classrooms, and occasionally dining, catering, or party facilities." The above definition is closest to convention type activities available in the Trip, Generation and therefore was used for our estimate. A vehicle trip is defined as a single or one direction vehicle movement with either the origin or destination (exiting or entering) inside the study site. These trip generation values account for all site trips made by all vehicles for all purposes, including employee, customer, visitor, recreation, and service and delivery vehicle trips. A pass -by trip is an existing trip that comes directly from the traffic flow on a road adjacent to the project site, and does not require a diversion from another roadway. A diverted linked trip does require a diversion from another roadway. Both of these types trips can be deducted from the total primary trips because they are not new to the street network. Based on pass -by and diverted linked trip percentages found in Section VII of Trip Generation and previous traffic studies, we estimate that approximately 35% of the site- generated trips can be classified as pass -by /diverted linked trips. T081593.RPT BEST PRODUCTS December 20, 1993 Page -4- TpE The net new project trips were calculated by subtracting the pass - by /diverted linked trips from the total driveway volumes for the proposed project and the trip generation from the existing Seattle Fur Exchange Building. Figure 6 shows the estimated trip distribution and the calculated site - generated traffic volumes. The distribution is based on the characteristics of the street network, existing traffic volume patterns, the location of likely trip origins and destinations (residential, employment, shopping, social and recreational opportunities), expected travel times, and previous traffic studies. PARSING GENERATION The parking generation is estimated using the parking generation equation in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Parking Generation, Second Edition, 1987, for Shopping Center (ITE Land Use Code 820). The calculated peak parking demand which is expected to occur during the midday hours is 191 stalls (Shopping Center). This demand results in a surplus of 41 parking stalls (232 minus 191). FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS WITH PROJECT Figure 7 shows the projected 1994 PM peak hour traffic volumes with the proposed project. The site - generated PM peak hour traffic volumes shown on Figure 6 were added to the projected background traffic volumes shown on Figure 5 to obtain the Figure 7 volumes. Level of service (LOS) is a qualitative measure describing operational conditions within a traffic flow, and the perception of these conditions by drivers or passengers. These conditions include factors such as speed, delay, travel time, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions, comfort, convenience, and safety. Levels of service are given letter designations, from A to F, with LOS A representing the best operating conditions (free flow, little delay) and LOS F the worst (congestion, long delays). Generally, LOS A and B are high, LOS C and D are moderate, and LOS E and F are low. Table 2 shows the calculated LOS for 1994 with project conditions at the driveways. The LOS were calculated using the procedures in the Transportation T081593.RPT BEST PRODUCTS December 20, 1993 Page -5- �pE Research Board Highway Capacity Manual - Special Report 209, 1985. The LOS shown indicate overall intersection operation at signalized intersections and worst case traffic approach operation at stop sign controlled intersections. At signalized intersections, LOS is determined by the calculated average delay per vehicle. At two -way stop sign controlled intersections, LOS is determined by reserve capacity. Reserve capacity is the number of new vehicles that can be added to a traffic movement before the operational conditions deteriorate and motorists begin to experience serious backups and delays (LOS F). The unsignalized intersection analysis procedure is conservative, and tends to indicate a worse operation than most motorists perceive at the intersection. Typically the LOS shown for an unsignalized intersection is the LOS for the side street left turn, which is usually the worst case traffic movement. At intersections where the left turn volume is low, the operation indicated should be tempered by engineering judgement based on roadway and traffic conditions. To calculate the LOS at the site access intersections with both Andover Park W. and Strander Blvd. we have used a multi-lane reduction factor against the through traffic volumes on these streets. The multi -lane factor is used to account for some vehicles on the main road arriving at the intersection side by side (50% volume) versus totally random arrival (100% volume). Therefore, to account for the differing arrival patterns [i.e. (50% + 100 %) _ 2 = 75 %] the through traffic volume is reduced by 25 %. The truck access to the site will be via the eastern driveway onto Strander Boulevard. To better facilitate trucks on •site, the project proponent is working with the property owner to the northeast (McConkey Development) on a shared truck turnaround easement. It is our understanding both project proponents are in agreement to this arrangement. TRAFFIC IMPACT MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS The City has indicated that they are collecting contributions for several intersection improvement projects throughout the City. The developer should offer to pay contributions for those intersections which are expected to be impacted by ten or more net new noon peak hour project trips. According to our trip generation analysis the net new noon peak hour trips generated by the project is T08I593.RPT BEST PRODUCTS December 20, 1993 Page -6- TpF 77. Therefore, the following intersections and their associated cost per noon peak hour trip are listed in Table 3. In addition to the pro rata share .contributions identified in Table 3, the project proponent will be required to construct frontage improvements to both Andover Pk. W. and Strander Boulevard. It is our understanding these improvements consist of widening the roadway to the property line and constructing the sidewalk on site. The road - widening will require the relocation of the existing signal pole in the northeast corner of the Andover Park W. /Strander Blvd. intersection. This relocation should not require replacement of either the signal pole or mast arms if it is moved due north. With the road - widening, opportunities for channelization improvements may be available. For Andover Pk. W. we recommend deferring the improvements until the property on the west side is re- developed. The channelization improvements on Strander Blvd. should be coordinated with the City and the Segale project currently under construction on the south side of the street. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS We recommend that the Seattle Fur Exchange Building Remodel be constructed as shown on the site plan with the following comments: 1. Offer to contribute $14,652 for proposed City road improvement projects as identified on Table 3 of this report. 2. The developer will be required to widen the roadway to the property line, and install a sidewalk and a landscape buffer along the project frontage to both Andover Pk. W. and Strander Boulevard. 3. Channelization improvements along Andover Pk. W. should be deferred until the property on the west side of the roadway is redeveloped. 4. Channelization improvements to Strander Blvd. should be coordinated with the City and the Segale Development. With both T082593.RPT BEST PRODUCTS December 20, 1993 Page -7- ...,.... oa.•..•.»..,...,..»........•.........•............... ,.._......,,...n.....n.2..n•... rrnxnf..��?*�r rsWa:•xaa!ntcM:..rn:u,rxrrt,nn + nrcaadnv7: the Segale Development and the proposed development, Strander Blvd. will have a five -lane cross - section between Andover Pk. W. and Andover Pk. East. The existing signal pole in the northeast corner of the Andover Pk. W. /Strander Blvd. intersection will require relocation. Relocating the signal pole and mast arm to the north should be feasible without the need to replace either. No other traffic mitigation should be necessary. If you have any questions please call me at (206)455 -5320. Very truly yours, TRANSPORTATION PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. /2f1ah3 Mark J. Jacobs, P.E. Project Engineer • EXPIRE$ 419197 MJJ /tta T081593.RPT APE TABLE 1 VEHICULAR TRIP GENERATION SEATTLE FUR EXCHANGE BUILDING REMODEL TRIP EQUATION ENTER EXIT TOTAL Proposed Retail, 84,065 sq. ft. ITE Land Use Code 820 Average Weekday T = 28.61x 1,202 (50 %) 1,203 (50 %) 2,405 AM Peak Hour T = 0.52x 28 (63 %) 16 (37 %) 44 PM Peak Hour T = 2.61x 109 (50 %) 110 (50 %) 219 Existing Warehouse, 66,159 sq. ft., ITE Land Use Code 150 Average Weekday T = 4.88x 162 (50 %) 161 (50%) 323 AM Peak Hour T = 0.57x 27 (72 %) 11 (28 %) 38 PM Peak Hour T = 0.74x 17 (35 %) 32 (65 %) 49 Existing Office, 14,650 sq. ft., ITE Land Use Code 710 Average Weekday Ln(T)= 0.756Ln(x) + 3.765 164 (50 %) 164 (50 %) 328 AM Peak Hour Ln(T)= 0.777Ln(x) + 1.674 38 (89 %) 5 (11 %) 43 PM Peak Hour Ln(T)= 0.737Ln(x) + 1.831 8 (17 %) 37 (83 %) 45 Existing Convention Space, 22,240 sq. ft., ITE Land Use Code 560 Average Weekday T = 9.32x 103 (50 %) 104 (50 %) 207 AM Peak Hour T = 0.74x 10 (64 %) 6 (36 %) 16 PM Peak Hour T = 0.72x 9 (54 %) 7 (46 %) 16 Net New Street Network Trips (Total Projected Driveway Volumes Minus 35% Pass -by and Diverted Linked Trips For Retail Portion Minus Existing Trips) Average Weekday 503 (50 %) 503 (50 %) 1,006 AM Peak Hour [ -47] [ -53] [ -54] PM Peak Hour 49 22 71 -NOTES: A vehicle trip is defined as a single or one direction vehicle movement with either the origin or destination (exiting or entering) inside the study site. These trip generation values account for all site trips made by all vehicles for all purposes, including employee, customer, visitor, recreation, and service and delivery vehicle trips. December 20, 1993 T081593.TB7 ..+......+.. �.............. �. �. ��..,.•. vm.. uu. M. Kx: n: 1, nfiK �h' tJ:+^ L+ riX1tT7 .ti5ii:.i'w��it�»'f:�!P' . TABLE 2 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE SEATTLE FUR EXCHANGE BUILDING REMODEL INTERSECTION 1994 WIPROJECT NOON PS SOUR PM PEAS SOUR Strander Blvd./East Site Access -- D [149] C [216] Strander Blvd./West Site Access B [387] A [507] Andover Pk. W. /Site Access A [478] A [521] • NOTES: ° Number in brackets [ ] is the reserve approach traffic movement which stop -sign intersection per the capacity for the worst case minor determines the LOS for a minor -leg 1985 Highway Capacity Manual. December 20, 1993 T081593.TB2 .�.t.:4'�LT:::*tt4`! 7Y�i'i ?r.:liTri ^7. ^.t: A'A�cUi(W ✓t:Y.T'C'Y"�i""1'.fi i�i'� TABLE 3 PRO RATA SHARE CONTRIBUTION SEATTLE FUR EXCHANGE BUILDING REMODEL INTERSECTION COST PER NOON PK HR. TRIP PM PK. HR. TRIPS NOON PK HR. TRIPS CONTRIBUTION COST Southcenter Pkwy. /Strander Blvd. $140 18 20 $2,800 Andover Pk. WiStrander Blvd. $317 28 31 $9,827 Andover Pk. EJStrander Blvd. $135 14 15 $2,025 W. Valley Hwy. / Southcenter Blvd. $1,000 7 8 . 0* W. Valley HwyJS. 180th St. $475 7 8 0* TOTAL $14,652 * No contribution required for less than 10 peak hour trips. December 20, 1993 ' T081593.TB3 132 13ZC ST ST CT S 133R0 sr 1 :44TH m sT 1 4603 IZ 15°111 ST ISsIsr sr :.RNDY n g, CC VS ars! 51a1 156111 ST at ST "cr arisrAil SPRINISp ST s 160Th ST 14A1C oni • " :Um .1 ,s : 7'304351ST >16340 : I ST I STI! S 167N ST AIN ST S EMell- S S • c•-• 411 STRAKER S 172ND •C I ST . - MittLER ST VICINITY MAP SEATTLE FUR EXCHANGE REDEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC STUDY SEATTLE FUR EXCHANGE REDEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC STUDY -1 m -U r > z a. jC ) PICK UP 2 7S HC 'EXIT I ( } 20.5 ti 1 DTf I 11 II I T 1 1 i 4-- -f- III!,III rNc 1 ENTR' H MEIN el Mw • I � . EfR 1 RECEING 1 � 1 IEX� IT 1 I I 1 + 1 11 _ 1 1 11 1 1 —t I I I 1 1 I 1 1 SE TTL.E I ,UI \ [� �XCHAN,�r E UlL ING 1 1 TUrCUVSLA, W SHIT IGT 1 1 I I J(hO55 .4. I 1 f ST P'0_D TS 1),,748 !SF 1 1 1 1 1 1 LINE OF EXISTING BJIILDING TO BE EaIOLEI-ED .192• ;1 D1T. cS N • I I I 1 I 1 1 I RET4 1 .33,3 7 SF' LER I NTR" vJ 3 C 1c 1S LIE CF EXPST■ BLILCPIG TO BE �CE41oLI J=I,D Fk, HC N.0 1 11 1 ss STRAI \'DER BOULEVARD 0 ss � not to scale F) Traffic Control Signal Stop Sign XX mph Posted Speed Limit ---' Approach Lane & Direction XL Number of Roadway Lanes EXISTING ROADWAY CONDITIONS SEATTLE FUR EXCHANGE REDEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC STUDY ..„ . • • .10•14,,,,,:t.Y.1,"....:V';•,• Tuesday July 14, 1992 (12:00-1: OOPM) 4:00-5: OOPM LEGEND FM(NOON) Peak Hour Traffic Volume & Direction EXISTING NOON & PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES SEATTLE FUR EXCHANGE REDEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC STUDY IFIGURE 4 ---798(781t) 513(802)-0- LEGEND XX(YY)--• PM(NOON) Peak Hour Traffic Volume & Direction 1994 PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES WITHOUT PROJECT SEATTLE FUR EXCHANGE REDEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC STUDY S. 178th St. LEGEND Soot ho er 20�; / [2o13 / U) "k X N ° ° 1 0 %�_M [101] 5 2 OOP Strarader [252 Blvd. 12—. 25% 0 0 Q_ c Q) 0 not to scale `IL-- 44 5 10% —►[101 Baker Blvd. Project Site NEE 10 4 20% [201] 20% 15% [151] 405 u 0 in In xx% Trip Distribution Percentage S. 180th St. X PM Peak Hour Traffic Volume & Direction [XX] New Average Weekday Traffic Volume * Driveway volumes include pass by and diverted linked trips Note: Noon peak hour traffic volumes 10% higher. M PM PEAK HOUR SITE GENERATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES & DISTRIBUTION SEATTLE FUR EXCHANGE REDEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC STUDY CFIGURE 6 LEGEND XX(YY)--s- PM(NOON) Peak Hour Traffic Volume & Direction 1994 PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES WITH PROJECT SEATTLE FUR EXCHANGE REDEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC STUDY • 1985 MOM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Page-1 ********************************************************************* IDENTIFYING INFORMATION AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET.. PEAK. HOUR FACTOR AREA POPULATION 250000 NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET andover park west NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET driveway NAME OF THE ANALYST m DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm/dd/vv) TIME PERIOD ANALY7ED noon peak OTHER INFORMATION.... 1994 w/ project INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL INTERSECTION TYPE: T-INTERSECTION AJ;::S ITREET MGPrH:'.:,-JUTH CONTROL TYPE WESTSOUND: STOP 'E.IGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES Ea LEFT 7HRU RECHT NUMBER OF LANES W2 4 HC 47 ;S':"7-) 0 _ ..rrxrrcr.Hxs>.,....; ,. ;•,.t�..,.ilt !:-V,T7 :11.21 +' '; tgtSr alk :.Ar.111 s}._ T"0,0 lr.:.'c.c- -.. ADJUSTMENT FACTORS Page -2 PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (ft) ACCELERATION LANE GRADE ANGLE FOR'RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS EASTBOUND WESTBOUND 0.00 NORTHBOUND 0.00 SOUTHBOUND 0.00 VEHICLE COMPOSITION 90 90 90 20 20 20 N N. N SU TRUCKS COMBINATION AND RV ' S VEHICLES 4 MOTORCYCLES EASTBOUND WESTBOUND NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND iii' :.i i .. . '.L :Ii�i'•.) .0 0 0 0 0 ADJUTFD VALUE ,•,L t✓I, i .$.3T. t �� AC'J J DTI il._i: t T FINAL CRITICAL .AP WB 5.70 5.20 0.00 5.20 se J . •Jl. 5.10 . . .. _ 5.10 W8 -.7)0 '7 . :3 i .00 ..:).:30 IDENTIF1NC. INFORMATION H111 1' OF THE 1 _ t_: i'7 WE'D i 1Ti''r_ - ,a I iC:iov:s. i. - . i t. i'J•: = t 'I.. -t IF_ 'I01 :'• I ITIJ '^f .lam— •+ i l�'ti ` %i" I i- i .:t�. I t•� ':.'J i I I T... T - N•I TI W: OF i .. ni'•i r-t •.. i .. 1'i Ii" .�i' MA i 1.'.'i . . . . .max �ieN» .,, ...— .- ... —. +. rn•.w r�nuv,.wx.w e.Mww.s, w,cnr..w. CAPACITY AND LEVEL -OF- SERVICE mn<».a >,a•.rrcr. rr_mt:,: �gao-tte'x!.lc".;�:�`�'" Page -3 MOVEMENT POTEN- FLOW- TIAL RATE CAPACITY v(pcph) c (pcph) P ACTUAL MOVEMENT CAPACITY c (pcph) lW SHARED CAPACITY c ( pcp'-1 ) SH RESERVE CAPACITY c = c - v LOS R SH MINOR STREET WB LEFT 153 RIGHT 53 886 MAJOR STREET • SS LEFT JC: 675 146 886 538 146 > 886 138 > D 478 >A . pp O..J / { IDENTIFYING INFORMATION • NAME OF THE =A'. /WE 1 T STREET :a ndov i park w.1- - �I�,• NAME OF THE r ^ TI STREET a.. �`�'•'RI IL. �JI I I IL IY� ✓1 � 1 1 1. J��U I� STREET1 l ^- I I..11 .L v e UI•,. j• DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS 12 -1 5- :19` ?^ • ✓THER rNt'OZMA T .. ,. N . . . . L'71'7)4 W I ..):=':: •�.. 24 A c 1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Page-1 ********************************************************************4. IDENTIFYING INFORMATION AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET35 PEAK HOUR FACTOR 1 AREA POPULATION 250000 NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET andover park west NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET driveway NAME OF THE ANALYST m DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm/dd/Yv) 12-15-1993 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED Pm Peak OTHER INFORMATION.... 1994 w/ project INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL INTERSECTION TYPE: T-INTERSECTION MAd!T)R STREET E'IRECTION: NORTHi-F,OUTH C.2NTROL TYR7 1'JCST!=.0UNr.:: STOP 'F.T3N TP,AFFIC VCLUME FE: !An NE. Se fl-P.: 0 55,i, 514 RIGHT 44 E • NC SE .. mx.wv.,w. «�r•r:,..rk:ro,• rr:�:,r r. z1 . %I.MY::h,VC111+.OnY,C12v,snrr ADJUSTMENT FACTORS Pa9e -2 EASTBOUND WESTBOUND 0.00 90 20 N NORTHBOUND 0.00 90 20 N SOUTHBOUND 0.00 90 20 N PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (ft) ACCELERATION LANE GRADE' ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR. RIGHT TURNS VEHICLE COMPOSITION EASTBOUND WESTBOUND NORTHBOUND '3GUTHBOUND CRITICAL GAP SU TRUCKS ? COMBINATION AND RV'S VEHICLES % MOTORCYCLES 0 0 0 MINOR RIGHTS I_ T . . NOR c) C. : A: ":l. 1_.7 : J1 _ .7 _ '.LF = T E_ C :r I - T C + ` .. FINAL ,L ! J. ... .11. -2 VALUE ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL :iiT WB 5.70 5.2I:1 0.00 5.20 ::E • _ : 0 S . L .C..00 5.10 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION 1- Mh OF. THE r=.: - -, E T OF TI �. •i '1.4,x':= , , •-, ,1�_..1 � I" ..,a �' !� ��:� iA '1E .F_ THE N ;:•_I _1..! ITI -c: EIT -{. .:1 i i':L_ i ri. '� .',. 1 I'i r. I (_ -slu.' i'AND TIME OF - THE _N1.;l, _ .. - _ - - ...._' .L CAPACITY AND LEVEL-OF-SERVICE Page-3 POTEN- FLOW- TIAL RATE CAPACITY MOVEMENT v(pcph) c (pcph) p Mf OR STREET WB LEFT RIGHT MAJOR, STREET SB.LEFT ACTUAL MOVEMENT CAPACITY c (pcph) M SHARED CAPACITY c (poph) SH RESERVE CAPACITY c = c - v LOS R SH 7 174 166 > 166 > • � > 576 � 521 48 867 867 • > 867 > 47 644 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION 644 644 160 > D }A 819 > A •597 A NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET .andover park NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH •TREETdrLvewa� DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYST ; OTHER INFORMATION..'' proj+cL Weat pm peal.: '••'' • •••• A•PP.Z.VAY,7•4:,.r....../.,,,,,V,...ShVg,t,r,..17,1. tt..741 ( 1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Page-1 ********************************************************************* IDENTIFYING INFORMATION AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET.. 35 PEAK HOUR FACTOR 1 PAPA POPULATION 250000 NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET strander blvd NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET westorn drwY NAME OF THE ANALYST m . J ..5 DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm/dd/yy ' TIME .PERIOD ANALCIED noon peak OTHER INFORMATION.... 1.994 w/ project INTERSECTION TIT'E AND CONTROL INTERSEC.TION T-INTERSECTIOM MA.7-R '.-)ME.".:7T12;N* EAST/WEST CONTPOL TYPE '..C(J7H8OUNC.: STOP IGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES LJB NE; THRU S.?'? •7.04.:2, 629 - - 34 • 1_ :lit NE. .`._...__.._,.__....._... ..._...,,... •..........,. ................,. ,..;..nr...,e,�wr.:T.r, .. rp..,•.•.. rr-,. n,..,•,.,•+ .....��a..;.,wnn..arrr•..,•.,•, e,. it\* rss�n,, ,:^.,.o.,.,....r,..,”.,.,en:.:. ,,,,•,, ADJUSTMENT FACTORS Page-2 PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (ft) ACCELERATION LANE GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS EASTBOUND 0.00 WESTBOUND 0.00 NORTHBOUND .Si7UTHBOUND 0.00 VEHICLE COMPOSITION 90 20 N 90 20 N 90 20 N SU TRUCKS ? COMBINATION' AND RV'S VEHICLES % MOTORCYCLES EASTBOUND 0 0 0 WETBOUND 0 0 0 NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND 0 0 0 CRITICAL GAPS. MINOR P IGH i ,.OR LEFT. MINOR LEFTS TABULAR Vr -1_'. .: Tat 10-2 VALUE ADJU,TMENT FINAL CRITICAL 'GAP SE S.70 S.20 0.00 _ .20 IDENTIFYING-INFORMATION NAME a-TRr - _I , blvd .1 i` {I fl'IL OF THE EAST/WEST •.J 1 Iz.,� i :�� i �:i i1 <<c 1� .J 1'.; i_, NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH -TREE' wcstarit •<1 "1 `.. ,., Ti_ AND TIME F THE, ANA1_ OTHER: i••;ER: i.i li Oi' IMA i I O:.i . . . . L9-,4 '.•d. , :�� r mw+.a...nwa.w.4" :701.•.m a CAPACITY AND LEVEL -OF- SERVICE »r.+w.nia,.sA.xYnvt ,7151. R0i"!71:VATSCIPMIAl anevar. sot Asm!m 'fi iltIVTCteltr: *: Page -3 MOVEMENT POTEN- ACTUAL FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT RATE . CAPACITY CAPACITY v(pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) P M SHARED CAPACITY c ( pcph ) SH RESERVE CAPACITY c = c - v LOS R SH MINOR STREET SB LEFT 8 136 RIGHT 37 825 MAJOR STREET EC LEFT .3i. 81 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION 130 825 581 • i 432 130 .Jo/ 825 ? 581 123 ) D 788 ) A 542 A NAME OF THE EAST WEST STREET strander blvd NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREETw e; F •i i i d rwv DATE � n "TE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS 12-157199:7; ; noon OTHER INFORMATION.... 1'?94 w; • project :1'L aLS?Snl -.ero� cN• .dl:i:!rC_�"xr.�T�,r!TJ'.M$"v -� 1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Page -1 **** r * * ** * *1 * * * ** ** ** ** * ** ***:i * ** * * * * **** **T **** * * ** * * ** ** * * * * * ** * * ** IDENTIFYING INFORMATION AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET35 PEAK HOUR FACTOR 1 AREA POPULATION 250000 .NAME OF THE EAST /WEST STREET strander blvd NAME OF THE NORTH /SOUTH STREET western drwy NAME OF THE ANALYST m..j.j. DATE OF THE ANALYSIS ( mm /dd /yy 12-15-1993 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED Pm Peak OTHER INFORMATION.... 1994 w/ project • INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL INTERSECTION TYPE: T- INTERSECTION mAJ .)l STREET U1 _ - ILN EAST/WEST CONTROL TYPE .JC'L 1 HBOUt'ID • STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES FP �h .vi.: •�Mf� LEI-T 7)2 THRU 467 539 LANEZ J L. 1 J 1..• NE 5B .' ADJUSTMENT FACTORS Page -2 PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (ft) ACCELERATION LANE GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS EASTBOUND 0.00 90 20 N WESTBOUND 0.00 NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND 0.00 VEHICLE COMPOSITION . 90 20 N 90 20 N EASTBOUND WESTBOUND NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND CRITICAL GAPS MINOR RD HT3 SE MAJOR LEFTS =E MINOR LEFTC. �JU SU TRUCKS % COMBINATION AND RV'S VEHICLES ° MOTORCYCLE 0 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED niST. FINAL LTable VALUE ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL GAP 5.20 x.10 0. 0 0 INFORMATION NAME OF THE EAST /WEST STREET and,.: i. Ni-,m1 .'F THE NORTH/SOUTH JTR EET vJ ee;te . n j) W:/ INC. IM- -t.- THE .� ., - -^ - : L - - I: CAT!: AND i . � L tom, � I-1�.. ;- ��`ar =nL : ,.:� _� .i _ -' . ; -'(i•I sa i. ` :)HER INFORMATION.., 1994 I.J.' project 5.20 .S . 80 ■ CAPACITY AND LEVEL -OF- SERVICE Page -3 POTEN FLOW- TIAL RATE CAPACITY MOVEMENT v(pcph) c (pcph) • P MINOR .STREET SB LEFT RIGHT MAJOR STREET EB LEFT ACTUAL MOVEMENT CAPACITY c (pcph) M SHARED CAPACITY c ( pcph ) 9 I I RESERVE CAPACITY c = c - v LOS R Sri 7 190 35 877 •!J IDENTIFYING INFORMATION • J J 183 > 549 877 659 183 877 659 177 > D 507 >A 841 > A 624 A NAME OF THE EA:=•T STRE T stra der 51vd NAME OF THE NORTH. ..J OtJTH STREETwas ar n drwy DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS 12- 15 -1993 ; pm peak OTHER INFORMATION.... 1994 wr project • . 1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INT ERSECTIONS Page-1 h****** ** ** * *TT * ** **** ** * ****** ****** * ** * *TT**** * y***TT* ** IDENTIFYING INFORMATION AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET35 PEAK HOUR FACTOR 1 AA POPULATION • 250000 NAME OF THE EAST /WEST STREET strander blvd NAME OF THE NORTH /SOUTH STREET eastern drwY NAME OF THE ANALYST m DATE OF THE ANALYSIS i mm /dd /y•: ? 12• -15•- 1993• TIME PERIOD ANALYZED noon peak OTHER INFORMATION.... 199+ w/ project INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL .INTERSECTION TYPE: T- INTERSECTION IrJO\ STREET DIRECTION: EAST /WEST CONTROL TYPE JUTi 1% OUND . S Tr:•!_• '.�.�1.]�•.! TRAFFIC VOLUMES WE. NE LEFT1 — Ll..l 1 THRU J9'•1 'RIGHT 18 MUMGER OF LAMES WE LANES NC: SE ADJUSTMENT FACTORS Page-2 PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (ft) ACCELERATION LANE GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS EASTBOUND 0.00 WESTBOUND 0.00 NORTHBOUND �u vv �THBOUMD 0.00 VEHICLE COMPOSITION 90 20 N 90 20 N _ 90 . 20 N % SU TRUCKS % COMBINATION AND RV'S EASTBOUND 0 VEHICLES % MOTORCYCLES _____________ 0 .• • • !' WESTBOUND 0 0 (� | NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND CRITICAL GAPS MINOR RIGHTS MAJOR LEFT HIHOR LEFTS 0 0 (} TABULAR VALUES -------------- 5.70 7.20 IDENTIFYING' INFORMATION ADJUSTED VALUE .30 SIGHT DIST. ADJUSTMENT ___________ NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET strander blvd NAME OF THE N0RTH'S0UTH STREET.''' *astecn drw• DA7-7_ TIME OF THE AHALI� • ; noon ��ak OTHER INFORMATION.... • FINAL CRITICAL GAP • CAPACITY AND LEVEL-OF-SERVICE L Page-3 POTEN- FLOW- TIAL RATE CAPACITY MOVEMENT v( pcph) c (pcph) p MINOR STREET SE3 LEFT RIGHT MAJOR STREET EB LEFT ACTUAL MOVEMENT CAPACITY c (pcph) M' SHARED CAPACITY c ( pcph ) SH RESERVE CAPACITY c .=-1* c - v LOS R SH 20 140 7 820 IDENTIFYING INFORATION 139 820 573 573 176 139 > 820 > S73 NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET strander bLvd NAME OF THE NORTft-7,CUTH STREETaastarn drws/ DATE AND TIME OF 7:-IE ANALYSIS 12-15-199'3. ; noon OTHER INFORMATIOr:.... wz project 120 > D 149 >0 814 > A peak 567 77 ... ....,..N.a..�..,�,.. »,w.....a•. «.. R....,.... �,...,..,.. �,....,.....ti,_.......,........ ..........................><.,..... w.....,....,.... .........,....r".er«,.,,.+ar•nn :- �snA:Y�t.:n4titiw ... 1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS •h il• Page-1 ********yT.****** TAyTFTyTn*TTTMT *TTy **T *******t TW* ******* **** IDENTIFYING INFORMATION AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET35 PEAK HOUR FACTOR 1 AREA POPULATION 250000 NAME OF THE EAST /WEST STREET strander blvd NAME OF THE NORTH /SOUTH STREET eastern drwy NAME OF THE ANALYST DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mmi dui yy 12 -15-1993 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED pm peak OTHER INFORMATION.... 1994 w/ project • INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL INTEL? ECTION'. TYPE: T- INTER:i_C T I0N T - ES lip.. ;, -n`I_ 1 !::.C.'_ T I:jl`( 1_.4:_ I Ir1 I CNTF�I T PC ...,U T1 IC01 / D - rr�n G N +1 11�I I I I�•� .J1l Ir I i 11...1l IJI �IJ • .J 11: � .iI a1�Y TRAFFIC VOLUME•& 1_ SF, 4:37 .39 329 • it ii`;i.'.•Ei :-;17. LANES J za Wei 111.. S8 LANES _ l I. • .:.... EE '5.!:-.4 5..10 0.00 5.10 MINOR LEFTS 6,80 0.00 6.60 • IDENTIFYING INFORMATION NAME OF THE EAST:WEST STREET strander blvd. • NAME OF THE NORT;i.SCUTH .east.Brn drw, DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYIS- -15 ; pm p.5,ak • OTHER INFORMATION.... L» w/ Project ! • : • CAPACITY AND LEVEL -OF- SERVICE Page -3 POTEN- FLOW- TIAL RATE CAPACITY MOVEMENT v( pcph ) c ( pcph ) P MINOR STREET ACTUAL MOVEMENT CAPACITY c (pcph) M SHARED CAPACITY c ( pcph ) SH RESERVE CAPACITY c = c - v LOS R SH SB LEFT 18 195 RIGHT 5 872 MAJOR STREET ES LEFT ;; 651 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION 194 872 651 194 > 872 > 651 NAME OF THE EAST /WEST STREET' stranck r blvd NAME OF THE NORTH /SOUTH STREETaa:_ e r_ urW DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS 12 -15 -1993 pm OTHER INFORMATION.... 1994 w/ project 177 > D 216 >C 866 > A 646 A peak ......w..a.:yan.:r., �s�i•n ;•,•:t•�;.Ai;^r.,. -,rN +r•.n ✓•ra:.!S City of Tukwila Board of Architectural Review Design Review Application Best Products Co. Inc. Remodel 1. RELATIONSHIP OF STRUCTURE TO SITE A. This site should be planned to accomplish a desirable transition with the streetscape and to provide for adequate landscaping, and pedestrian movement. Response: This site has a wonderful, 20 -year old, mature, groundcover and tree planter strip along Andover Park West (APW) and Strander Boulevard which, along with new landscaping, provides an excellent buffer between the busy arterial and the interior of the site. The proposed side walk is located inside of this buffer, bringing pedestrians away from vehicular traffic. The sidewalk is buffered from the parking lot by new landscaped planters which are designed to enhance and go with the existing landscaping and to screen the cars from the sidewalk. Additional plantings adjacent to the buildings and at the end of each row of parking complement the other landscaping, providing the desired transition. B. Parking and service area should be located, designed and screened to moderate the visual impact of large paved areas. Response: The parking areas are well designed, moderating their visual impact. The most visible half of the parking is adjacent to the substantial, 20- year-old. established mature landscaping mentioned above. Note that no parking is more than 45 feet from an existing or new landscaping planter. Particular attention has been paid to the service area. The dumpster areas are adjacent to the building, and the enclosures are screened from view from adjacent properties, the street and the retail parking area. All three of the full -sized loading spaces are hidden behind the building from the street. One of the loading docks is directly against the building . • x4TtR'C:;72" City of Tukwila Design Review Application C. The height and scale of each building should be considered in relation to its site. Response: This area of Tukwila is very homogenous in height and scale. The existing building, which is being remodeled from an industrial warehouse to a retail store, is 25 feet tall, similar to its neighbors to the west, north and east. The addition of the retail entry, windows, and canopy elements on the south and west walls of the proposed, add modulation to the building. Windows, doors, and truck service elements are being added to the relocated concrete panels along the northeast side of the building . . RELATIONSHIP OF STRUCTURE AND SITE TO ADJOINING AREA A. Harmony in texture, lines, and masses is encouraged Response: The reuse of existing concrete tilt -up panels with their aggregate finish assures that the proposed remodeled retail building is in harmony with its neighbors, especially the recently remodeled Computer City Supercenter to the east, which was designed similarly by the same architect. The preservation of the existing mature landscaping ties in with similar plantings on the sites to the west and east along Strander Boulevard. B. Appropriate landscaping transitions to adjoining properties should be provided Response: Existing landscaped buffers to the north, west, and south are to be preserved. New landscaping is being added at the east property line where none now exists. a�u.✓a. __... .... .�.. ......,.. wn., w. �urow..-..+......... w.......,,.....+...............,. n. a.. n,. vw, xrsrar. lFrvtVra•,.9MAi.;Yi'."..�`S.+aT: SAY[ 1',`. tncwSMS.+ ofYNC :rttn',mstvn:vnl� :v.vtznav: City of Tukwila Design Review Application C. Public buildings and structures should be consistent with the established neighborhood character. Response: Not applicable D. Compatibility of vehicular pedestrian circulation patterns and loading facilities in terms of safety, efficiency and convenience should be encouraged. Response: Truck entry to the site is restricted to the east driveway. Trucks will travel directly to the truck maneuvering area, which will be segregated in the rear of the site away from customer parking and pedestrian activity at the front end. Retail customer vehicles and pedestrian traffic will primarily congregate around the retail entries at the south and . west ends of the building, and will use the driveways and sidewalks closest to the building entries . E. Compatibility of on -site vehicular circulation with street circulation should be encouraged. Response: Two existing driveway onto Strander Boulevard and APWare being abandoned, promoting safer access to the site. The new driveway along Strander Boulevard and APW are being located so as to promote coordinated use with the Segale Retail Center driveway across the street. 3. LANDSCAPING AND SITE TREATMENT A. Where existing topographical patterns contribute to the beauty and utility of a development they should be recognized and preserved and enhanced. Response: NA. City of Tukwila Design Review Application B. Grades of walks, parking spaces, terraces, and other paved areas should promote safety and provide an inviting and stable appearance. Response: We are voluntarily proposing a sidewalk along Strander Boulevard and APW to run primarily inside of the existing mature, 20 -year-old landscaping, similar to the recently redeveloped sites to the east. Pedestrian traffic from adjacent properties to the east and north are accommodated with handicapped - accessible ramps leading to the well - buffered, inviting, and stable pedestrian circulation sidewalk. From there, sidewalk and striped access through the parking areas to the building entrances are convenient and clearly recognizable. Pedestrians coming from parking in the rear and south lots are provided with sidewalks along the south and west sides of the building. C. Landscape treatment should enhance architectural features, strengthen vistas and important axis, and provide shade. Response: The existing mature, 20- year -old groundcover and trees along with new street trees provides the entire site with an effective barrier from the busy, adjacent arterial. These trees provide shade as well for the proposed sidewalks and parking areas. New landscaping along the building's west, south and north sides reinforce these attributes while moderating the scale of and casting contrasting shade patterns on the 23 to 32 -foot building walls. A view corridor east to west through the site is created by the partial demolition of the southwest portion of the building, continuing what was started with the Computer City Remodel. D. In locations where plants will be susceptible to injury by pedestrians or motor traffic, mitigating steps should be taken. Response: Cast -in -place concrete curbs and sidewalks protect all new and existing landscaping. A path of ramps and striping leads clearly from the south parking lot area to the building, discouraging pedestrians from walking through the planting areas. City of Tukwila ( Design Review Application Where building sites limit planting, the placement of trees or shrubs in paved areas is encouraged Response: Approximately 7% of the site is planted. Planters are located at the ends of all parking rows and at corners of the building. Screening of service yards, and other places which tend to be unsightly, should be accommodated by use of wails, fencing, planting or combinations of these. Screening should be effective in winter and summer. Response: The three full-sized truck loading bays are hidden behind the building. A mix of evergreens and deciduous trees and shrubs, and enclosure walls assure year- around screening of the service areas. The dumpster and recycling areas are recessed into the building or screened by enclosures and landscaping. G. In areas where general planting will not prosper, other materials such as fences, walls , and paving of wood, brick, stone, or gravel may be used. Response: Planters are provided along all required buffers. H. Exterior lighting, when used, should enhance the building design and the adjoining landscaping. Lighting standards and fixtures should be of a design and size compatible with the building and adjacent area. Lighting should be shielded, and retrained in design. Excessive brightness and brilliant colors should be shielded, and restrained in design. Excessive brightness and brilliant colors should be avoided. Response: Lighting emphasis will be on the retail entry. The north and east sides with their immediately adjacent neighbors, will be lit for security and service criteria only. All proposed fixtures on site will be shielded types. The proposed parking lot light standards will be less than 15 feet high. 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. Response: The existing building is the best looking, concrete tilt -up panel type building in the area. Its aggregate finish is of very fine quality and has been well maintained over the years. These panels are being relocated on site and integrated into the proposed structure in an attractive fashion, and many interesting addition materials are being added. The surrounding area is almost completely of similar scale and building types. B. Grades of walks, parking spaces, terraces, and other paved areas should promote safety and provide an inviting and stable appearance. Response: The surrounding area is nearly completely of similar scale and building types, though not as nice as this one. The building two doors to the east, Computer City, has been recently redeveloped in a similar fashion. City of Tukwila Design Review Application .............., V.. e. ....uw+:,nnx+.- ....,.,..,....,. ....«.._,......ti....,..... ...,r.....oen „Y.r,n:or.=.rn..e. nvrre, w�+ m«< ri «....- ..«..............,..,.. o =.xc.arr.:s+rs�c 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. Response: The main retail areas will have well - proportioned portal components. Windows are being added to provide a more inviting appearance. Landscaping adjacent to the building will add human scale to those walls which are not being enhanced by the entry areas. D. Colors should be harmonious , with bright or brilliant colors used only for accent. Response: The building will remain primarily of painted finish. However, bright color accents will be introduced at the south and west elevations. E. Mechanical equipment or other utility hardware on roof, ground of buildings should be screened from view. Response: • Mechanical equipment on the roof will be screened from view and held back away from the edge of the building. F. Exterior lighting should be part of the architectural concept. Fixtures, standards and all exposed accessories should be harmonious with building design. Response: Exterior lighting fixture will not be a primary architectural feature. All building mounted fixtures will be harmonious with the exposed finish. • ... «...vn.........rwr+x�Nw�+r..�u. M�a+. �i. r. . ww. awaw ..- .v...xw...y„rv..w..vi.cA.sw J*..+.MU.W .Y.�"�:�+y'T�h C; Mrt: Sr: 1'. yC' J�•.• S�:: Cfl+ ili�4� !w+lrW'lvyw[m�f':lcs'9ro!aSCY City of Tukwila Design Review Application G. Monotony of design in single or multiple building projects should be avoided. Variety of detail, form, and siting should be used to provide visual interest. Response: Although similar, none of the adjacent buildings are of the same painted finish. 5. MISCELLANEOUS STRUCTURES AND STREET FURNITURE A. Miscellaneous 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. Response: Not applicable. B. Lighting in connection with miscellaneous structures and street furniture should meet the guidelines acceptable to site, landscaping and buildings. Response: Not Applicable: INTERURBAN SPECIAL REVIEW DISTRICT 1. The proposed development design should be sensitive to the natural amenities of the area. Response: The largest natural amenity in the area is the existing, mature 20- year-old landscaping along Strander Boulevard and APW. These are being preserved and made a key part of the proposed landscape design. City of Tukwila Design Review Application 2. The proposed development use should demonstrate due regard for the use and enjoyment of public recreational areas and facilities. Response: Lunch and break areas for employees are being provided at the planter areas around the building. 3. The proposed development should provide for and convenient on -site pedestrian circulation. Response: Sidewalks along the south and west property lines, the south and west building sides, and within the south and west parking areas promote this. 4. The proposed property use should be compatible with neighboring uses and complementary to the district in which it is located. Response: A site to the east along Strander Boulevard was recently remodeled for another retail user with similar bulk / retail use. Many of the other buildings on this block are being considered for similar redevelopment. The Segale Retail Center is approved and under construction. 5. The proposed development should seek to minimize significant adverse environment impacts. Response: The proposed development pulls the building area further back on the site and increases the amount of landscaping. 6. The proposed development should demonstrate due regard for significant historical features of the area. Response: Not applicable. • 5L Howard R. Turner, AIA December 18,1993 ACLRA DEALER 01 RAKER TKIEVAR( RRIEn nnnRRTi 1 • PROJEC�' SITE SEA -FIR 240 AMDOVER PARK WEST ILKWLA, WASI WO1CN • VICON8'UY MAPS 1 m 223 (TAKER ROU.EVARD 05AKER EVARD "11IIIUlI111TIUR "i'_•" .1 11111110111111118 ' ANDOVER PARK EAST C FDELITY ASSOC. 402 SIRAPDER BOULEVARD CORMIER CITY 404 STR BOULEVARD ✓%r • S(RA66(11000.EVARD�._� —. _ —� �I SECALE RETAIL QNI[R 401 SIRANXR BOULEVARD eIBILOCIK MAP 1" =100' I9 19 19 164 SHEET INDEX CONSULTANTS ARCHITECTURAL ARCHITECT BAR 1 (025890.7 (72/0/93) LIAR 2 SOF RAN - OAR 3 I /60H REVATO6 OAR 4 I /6111 R FVA1[INS k n ANS CIVIL B(6/25 93 ARS (LNIC 1066015 A/O UTLITY RAN LANDSCAPE BAR 6 14105172E Y FLAN (72/8/93) SURVEY 1.410 147E 9f8SY (6/90 CODE INDEX GENERAL 11(0(6 4141 655056165 0420 241110.6CE NE. SEATTLE. WA9841ICT1 980.5 (266)365 -7431 FAX 365 -7504 CC0O1t1AC1. 106(6110 R. 1726(8. RA CIVIL & SURVEY 11194 ROM ,011 MOMS 207) • 07 MINE EAST SEAT HC 869611101 9602 (2861123 -464 FAx 323 -7175 COIIACP.011 E. AI(1FRSM1PE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT 14116411 PS KO MAN 5116E I. 411F 0 (01090.176994104146020 (21:6)7/6-4932 FAX 774 -1001 CONTACT, %ANN P4J6L6 S 8162301 TRAFFIC ENGINEER 184271 7141860 410 (717 6ERNO.EC. 201 112 111 AVENUE 111611665/ MILEVM.w65115ICN 97004 CO166N 55 -5320 FAX 453 -7140 II*C1: 11441 JAMAS. PE. BA (55 CCOE: 0910)C OCCIPA149 MASS 82 1 6- 99910617.4 9778261 1(50(0 BY C0118A0101 AREA TOTAL 6.(15115 CLUNG AREA (1(13(65 [x61141 1(22416() MAOUTION 9MLCtC 6x6155 LIT 714141) 146564)1 R (*41 11011: 2 511(5.5. 40 FEET OT MI MO �S/(76 0-5T1794) 20) 0725 • .7W50744#7) 15 x OP00 SF X 3 • VAx1.1L0ALLLOWARE 91(540 AMA A 4-1031 SEPARATOI WALL 5 41011(0 MINTER TEST RIOONCIS PETAL SICK MD TUTU( 90' EGRESS 101575 SF 16.765 SF 83.754 Sr 54.000 Sr 50.746 SF 35.056 Sr 1(S118933.115 PE(TAL 51041E ) /j C *0114 (1000.11.001 0 2. 02 - 206 IO[5 / 5(10) -x42 OCOl'AN15 EMI WORT FROVM4 20 70E5 70 116E 90' ( 30) CMXPAN1 LOAD F731 81381 8(M111µ1: 974 / 02 • 175 70 (5 / ) • Q7/ OCCIPARIS ENT W0711 MOWED 105 FOES 14661114 I•AVM OSIANOE MLONTO FOR 875650 0.1.(541 • 210 FEET 41814141 1.4.1 Or ERI5 PLR 3303(o) ZONING 2015 BMOC 916601 LIE 40511.64 I(OTT NOTES 504 1700111(sllRRAI 410 APW).25' 8EA8(44).5' 5015 • NOTES (DI gil__ _J TURNER AND ASSOCIATES AICMTICTS 8470 2411 RAM. SLAI IL(, 87965196 9665 (796) .765.7131 FAx 365 -7 COVER SHEET SEA -FUl RE6TOOEL 1U<WLA WA .05 1(51 DRAM DRAM BY SON 0E00.0 ELY MN DAM 12/8/93 SCA1E: VARE5 REVISIONS SHEET BARI 5 OAOIC SETBACK A_ID LAND".�CAPE I1l.FFER TTTTTe_I___ 11•11111111111 11 1 ei I 1 5, X i I 1 _ --7 -- -.— N I -- __ g -- q i I I I I I W 1 s ! i 1— o ' — 8 1 ! 1 1 ! ! IRE 1— _ 2 j 1 t 1 T 1 1 t 1 IP 4 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 I I I I 0_'. '15' ' _775 35' 25'. 2VA I SEATTLE OUR EXC ANGE BUILDINGI -I— —� + - -- 1 i I 1400 SliRAN ER B01 LE I AR ! ! IC - ! I i I TIUKWILA,i W A SHINICTON 1 1 1 x He j i i I i 14,o, 5 . ) i i i I Ce 1 - - -- -- • „c • I' i i i i ! i 1 W 1 : �"j. I i I f f I I I I ! O 1 -1 —�' m- -> I I I I I I I I —" I BAST PRODUaTS I I I I FUTURE SHOP -- I — I f 150,7k18 SFI I I 1 I 33j317 SF Z 5_ I J 2' —I -- I i ! i I i I ! i ! Q i 1., _I —i ° $ I in 1,92, � I I 1 1 I I EMT i I (, in - - ENTRY �1 — 6 • - - - -- •uun LIE CF 005TH'. TO FE OUAOIDOEO 0.1258' 101011 WTI CAATTEDGL06LiE • NOTES PARKING ANALYSIS BULONC AREA 59.001 SF. RETAL 24.753 SF. WAREHOUSE 83,754 SF. TOTAL PROPOSED PARIQIG 123 STANDARDS 109 COMPACTS 232 TOTAL STALLS 11EEPARKNG.S \1000 SF. 25 REOLNTED _6 111000 5F. 173 TOTAL REUIf1LD ALLOWABLE COATS 3070 COAPACTS 52 EXTRA COAPACTS - 59 ALLOWABLE - 111 > 109 Li TURNER AND ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTS 6120 2.0 HA¢ NL sr Al n4 TIA91CT01 AIMS (706) 36S4Q1 SITE PLAN SEA -FI.R mmoca TLKWLA WA .CO (EST !LC 1518192 UTAYM In SOH 0E01010. INT DAIL 1210/93 `..GALE t 20'-0. REVISIONS 75' - - - -SB' 2 ' >9' 10 COA'ACIS 0 8' -80 124 10 COI.i'AC1S 0 8' -80' RLE STAMM 1021 i I 0 COd'ACIS 68'= 80' 4 8' 4 0 COAPACTS 6 8•=60 i B' l 8 CC.PACT5 0 8' =88' HXIITR 23.5' RAID IP-- 9 STANDARDS 0 85' -765' 11 CO.VACIS 6 8' -88 , 7' IIIIII1- 1 1 HIIIIIIIIII N _ 6' Ca.CRETE SOMALI( WIN 5' SURE UES STRANDER BOULEVARD SHEET BAR2 6,\ WEST ELEVATION arr. 1_AI ALE EAST ELEVATION 2SCall 1 /16'•f D' Kr: -Al 1 (ThNORTH ELEVATION AT/: 1 Al d \ "l I 4 CD T IuuII!! IIl ® !' 111 ei 56 -. H .L. ■Irt ■ (ThNORTH ELEVATION AT/: 1 Al d \ "l SOUTH ELEVATION 4 SPACE: I /G'.r -o`- for: 1 -41 CEK 1 1 11111 111 • NOTES CQOR Oi Oasi90 rum our mHOt1E ;was vim 91Mww5 AV coos TO Et MASTED ®DwT9c mom AOO1tCATE maul PAIaS © F1:10CATIII ORO'3D AODtGATE mum TE P140S Q f!w FORD 14 PLACE MUM C3 PARED =Tun CW 1' wit WPM SCriD1 WALL p PANTED 1E111. GATE 4141 FROWNED 20 CA PAOA PAIaS ® PAWED O 1M 24 CA CORM, ® IoW PANED 24 CA CORC Q/ PAIRED slm. COLIEM CD PTEP14RED 20 CA CNMPr AM P404 P4.1115 ® PANTED Sim. ROM. (D PANED oar ioac ma sm. ROD CD OR1'ME SY5104 at ma. IRMIO (D cum smut ON 51[0. IRAAN3 7J ORTNT smut RI stm. MAIO CD CROAT 5YSTDA 0151TR MAMA ®1 555101 a 51E73 IR1410 cp cum 55511l104 5110. 1141410 Q cum mini W s1511. /num ® WAIT 515101 W 51EEL TRAAo (Dior AI1ooIID MIAMI STORMONT ® MING oYrnEAO DOOM CD TER OVERHEAD cocas CD palm tut ea COOK S5 Taw cot mocAIED /DM Oar cocas P-0 TURNER AND ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTS 9420 2414 RACL NL SLAT RL 4454610196165 (206).165 -74]1 ELEVATIONS SEA -FIN REIXOEL TUEWLA WA JOD BEST 1I1•BSTBARS DRAWN 05: m1 OECMD Br: 1141 0410. 1.210/93 SCALE: 1.16' -0• REVISIONS SHEET BARS I 4 1 1 4 Ill _ - H SOUTH ELEVATION 4 SPACE: I /G'.r -o`- for: 1 -41 CEK 1 1 11111 111 • NOTES CQOR Oi Oasi90 rum our mHOt1E ;was vim 91Mww5 AV coos TO Et MASTED ®DwT9c mom AOO1tCATE maul PAIaS © F1:10CATIII ORO'3D AODtGATE mum TE P140S Q f!w FORD 14 PLACE MUM C3 PARED =Tun CW 1' wit WPM SCriD1 WALL p PANTED 1E111. GATE 4141 FROWNED 20 CA PAOA PAIaS ® PAWED O 1M 24 CA CORM, ® IoW PANED 24 CA CORC Q/ PAIRED slm. COLIEM CD PTEP14RED 20 CA CNMPr AM P404 P4.1115 ® PANTED Sim. ROM. (D PANED oar ioac ma sm. ROD CD OR1'ME SY5104 at ma. IRMIO (D cum smut ON 51[0. IRAAN3 7J ORTNT smut RI stm. MAIO CD CROAT 5YSTDA 0151TR MAMA ®1 555101 a 51E73 IR1410 cp cum 55511l104 5110. 1141410 Q cum mini W s1511. /num ® WAIT 515101 W 51EEL TRAAo (Dior AI1ooIID MIAMI STORMONT ® MING oYrnEAO DOOM CD TER OVERHEAD cocas CD palm tut ea COOK S5 Taw cot mocAIED /DM Oar cocas P-0 TURNER AND ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTS 9420 2414 RACL NL SLAT RL 4454610196165 (206).165 -74]1 ELEVATIONS SEA -FIN REIXOEL TUEWLA WA JOD BEST 1I1•BSTBARS DRAWN 05: m1 OECMD Br: 1141 0410. 1.210/93 SCALE: 1.16' -0• REVISIONS SHEET BARS VINO cOMITTEFIe 0 AMMO ARLL1ONS OSOUTH ELEVATION SCNE. /B' -f -0' fEr, l -Al CONPAC S u 0 0 0 0 0 WEST ELEVATION VSCALE. I /5' -F -0' ,_� 4 4-57 RC F. 1 -M PICK UP COVERED SIDEWALK HC ST 4NDA RDS NOTES (ED I°�Oi9S NO COOS 10 EC COMTE D WM ® 06Tm 06'R'm AGOICCATE mom 'was (ND 'clam a0'OS D AOOEGATT = 1E P440.! © MEW POND N rum cam! Q Awn TFX1U9.D OU !' Nat 01i01 S[RDI MILL © fly P� CATE MIT R�NOT 20 W PA1411D 0670 24 OA COW ® MEW PANTED 24 GA WTD (E)P■NED sm. COUSN ®P EPA TED 20 OA won NO FAA 491113 ® PANE STEEL IWOIU. © MOW Coax l0 A0 51m ROD Q ORMr 345104 a Som FRAMO © arm SYSTEM ON STEEL EMIO ©1x41 S451111 a WM. nwac Q arm! 545104 a ITm 41411!0 (21) arm 11 515104 04 31111. 41491.0 © WAIT SYSTEM a SIM. moo (ID MOAT semi a 51m mA2w 21191 545104 a 31111. 4149M0 ®Kw 91En1- ALUNY StOQR04t ® 06140170400 woes ® MEW 4Ew00 two ® atom HDl 0n mate ® NEW COMMA= tua 0n TWO P-0 • RAMP l HC VAN ---RAND UP HC HC HC 2) D TURNER AND ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTS 14420 241.1. HAM BL S AI RE. 99996204 11/45 (704) 365 -7431 • ELEVATIONS SEA -FUR REL1000L TLNWLA WA .no BEST ELL 051602 124919 M: 011 OEMED DT: lilt DATE: 0 /00/93 SCALE r.9-o REVISIONS SHEET BAR4 u^:.t•.+%sm:.xrains•3rm.o.t. z3i1.2"FiRt.f"Rr,^,.r ?:' .?" ..t .'.`?X Ea- .V,,' •1 14 '19.5 tnnna 510I1VI140 111104.11 M t1 444 • mows 1111O4.41I111 STRANDER BLVD. . IOp,p w + a1 41174, i, 00001470 2.40444111114 wNM w 40, 7. !. w . 114014010 uIolaw It 4. -104111111111011, 147114 401740111111 w 0 c • NMI w a Kan t t n 011 W K 1100Saf YID 4140 I I I MI IOW ,s MOW IW111101t•YY.I. GRAPHIC SCALE l 111Q1) IM. ll A IIRJ 30' �I2/10/03 93283.00 1 . 1 • SHL. BAR 5 ,10110 C011011N0011 IIS 10 n1 u.• - 130110 AIOt15 10 Al .N.* .—,...-.—.-__......._ ..._...........__.._.._- ,.._... 1111.....- ......._......r «.,•., o+ T,.,•.•. 4�..r...m,.,xa.v:z�.:,- .,..y.sn .._, ?..,...,,y..y:v_.•Nr;i:Man :`,tiiaaw: ': oelo: o. o. 000.' o-o. 000c► o. o. oov o:oo.o.00e0000:ooco.000��000-o. 00004900006•oe00000000000000:o 0 1 '4. 040000.3311A31111 010 10 11.01105 1O N 100110 311 NM 111■0■1 011011101 IORD.111INC.t1 NNW 0 now, AiihnN,„ J V k- - 1 1111 10(10 01.%CS umw SNRGI TO 00110 MIMI WOW DANE 101E 1111110.33 A4111 110110001010 ,N IRE. 10 R1W1 'EXIT I 1 208 1 EXIT 1 PLANT SCHEDULE 11....1 A.A.. A. 15_ 11 Y.0 1111. Ir1.1.01..M.� 1.00.1 r1..1.1.1.N •.r..r11.1... 11y1.m1N.1 •11.1Y14.J1 AAA ar1ona.• (V R7 1►0.1.401.1301•l1q. ute ENTR 10'171 B 4.WiT11S•M11.W. 1E1. .rY 11' O °..N.r..wolu••11.. 331 0.41.11331 I0 O I�l.•1..•.WW.N.1N 111....1.0 10 O I.•.0•YI..1E.w1ww.•1•.. 1(0100.•.• N N',U l MIS o Nu.4..0M110YN. 10 •...r w.W11• O O1. Sr 3*1.11w'l 1411.0. IMLY4M1i • Il S .•O.w11Iw1u 1.11 rw../...rw 1.10.0. Q IA.11.101V.4.IY.• 311.•rw.u.. •1111 666 W 1010.46 • PW..wle 0 ▪ A.wF1..w0 143,1.011. '�.�• NNw.. WN.. L 01...1 1'1•.611'..,0.01. R..3 • 1 Isamu Iw..l 10911.1 /I;...�...a WY. rWw T.f..1N. l,.Y3•k0.3.l (1+' Go. ro� •.1111 N..t Av. 192' EXIT E IT I 11 V CID N EXI ENTR 1162' ��W TA.M.2 1 0 EXISTING BUILDING rtw1EM1D 0 BE /DEMOLISHED p.ru l 0104/101110 (10110 4110(31 WAIF .FIAT (DWG OF SRCI 11010 OA •Stln ,. OW. Yo LINE OF EXISTING BUILDING TO BE EMOLIXHED 18 NOTES 5D --gi'il TURNER AND ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTS IWO NN RAIL SEATTLE ITA9.CT0R MSS (2c6).113-70I rA0 365 -7•03 LANDSCAPE PLAN SEA -FUR REACCEL TU(WLA WA JO@ EEST ELL 13STEAR6 060001 °r: LAKIP AN I JAL. 04.061) BY: INT IT SP °AIL O/E/93 SCALE: REVISIONS Oar, + iridYl. j`/. lei•�.��►''�f'!`�li.I!h�!i� Lam umiafta . + ERaiE #RS!kl_i!r+!!'inswCKE 333rd LiU!3731[(� !! !�ta�iu;7i��C �lr1�somwii10- 'lNR.TM_►- :IESI�il�iilA' �� SS SS 0 SS z STRANDER BOULEVARD IA001l•10 011101 0Rl 10 S1RFI WR 1100111 4•1.•GISMw SHEET BAR 6 MIND AIMALTIC NNCMR[ SVITACT AUTOMATIC 41)1NALIA S.O.N. IU11 /11 O WIIIMANG *VIEDI110 1000 • CAT. PATIN - - f MTIrLIA[ OI RI4MT- o1•NAY C.C.. MS COMMIT DAIV[ CMIM LINK I OWN.* SUMMR SAIMAY 0110R IRrOW C00tTT STORM 411110 CURS 710 Ot701r00aT 101110 LICMr CONNIRION • 0 TMTLIC LTOR • PINT MYDRMT T.S. • Tt1IMONL •*0T0! I.M. lIAO PUL7 -M- MAT00 MIN -0- CAS MAIM O.V. CAS VOLVO MM 00001st TWIN LINT OR 101111! LINT NAMING STALL 5 88.25.70.E • NAT. MR00 • NATM VALV[ • PAID LTCMT • PAMINO STALL 700 OICAPITD PIS PLATTING• 31-11- RAILROAD Tuns 0140 I:. 607.76' ( _ Q c _.l. -_I. iE 7 Ouse 7 t1• PLC A +LPNlT4w L••hm COS 010 N 000 S m /me NAC 11 o 0TATD1, I. 4SO41 1 l0* ITT- - AC JP.," )_1 I 1 II' 1'111 -1 PLB _. -1.1001 0.00. E CCA 1 -N+pNVII LI I In tbui DDMbI Wary/0m 171I. a/lid/Iv NiO 96157S7F/ • bli .I • W I L> ht" �' _. 1:13 G Den 0.9.• 0' `4 M PAD Dens Alll 1' • • veoM J • }I� •J 01 • I. 1 . "II- ..... f__.A [ ,_• _ 4.89.21'05• R' 6004 L„ 7797' 3 00.1 61^' 1NNl r it Al 88./5'59•W Dv, AO IS AC a A a 556.9 (JILT Mm M AM ‘ _ AC .401 00• S IMF WI -Slat? /r' �,0 Am Sp •_ .4' 77* -J•. 40 L /64/h STREET PSI 01 'a4m P of 00.Try ' f STRANDEI2 1101111101 MIL1MTi10 AM MAMAS I0IOAT0 ON MI MS I0J3 71010000 MT 0000 010 VOII[0 IrOlt PWMIW S MUM. IMAT0 S Till MU,. S MUM NO LI7*MIR MA n* AMTIYR 01 T=oss SWAM. TON 0S /IAA[ [04[1100 Or 70041100 0TILITIO O AMS. OPTICAL TO Cu0O 0.7141 0S 001040 011100 /A1WCI. BLVD) ATLI S7,110 )0117*. TM 011 4.51 ASS, Moat oR LASS. O ▪ SITS AAMMA N, RATI1MAL IIn0O 0NS ANC* RATS RAM, Sr*R1Yt OAS 00.000 70, I110. 0001110 RUM 40. SISf0e0090 SSV.1T0D IM 700 •D• ARM IN 010 7000 PANAMA AM IOORCA1uW. RDMIDIRMIDRI Ile PASSIM, 07040 MOM. 1 01=1167 SAM TOM .AMIWPW) • VICINITY MAP Q C1MI1t1LAt1D4l *107C0 0000001110010 00.1 01100 P1O..... LAAD AMT.. )0.I ...OR. ADOPTS t CORP.. ST711, TOLD l MITTNIKS. INC. 100$ MINOR AVCMUT LAST uTTU, 10,01007m O 0.10110401 11041 301.4114 CSTIIICD TO, IuTTL[ I0 SCMMO[ TAICACO TIT[[ IMIU0NC[ COMA. MT ▪ 11. IS TMT TRAIL Mt O PLAT MD T. •x00. O MMin IT 01 Mae MCL IN ACCV000 7 MITN •NUUM 07*11DNORAIL O LOVIN00w0TS TOS MTA/ACCN LAND T1TLi JOTNTLT IITPT• 0.010 ▪ P home= LC ALTA AND ASM 00 SSS* e O M[ni Txe ACCU- RACY 07* )051113 OT • CIS •A• S x 1. A Rua TM.0PTN 000 TMe1A10. ITW 400. 1. 4. . •. le, II L 171 OF TASL[ T 000[• 617.(41 1 L 00000 CTSTI)ICATI IS SAM 0100 10000 1R[70NS IM ITN ACTON... Oat ULLT ACCENT. MRDISSIOML SOMA 10.14, x NS NO 0000 M[RANTT. 0.01 0010)0.00 OR IMAM. 010001.71041 'MAT PORTION 01 TRACT 1. MOWS INDUSTRIAL PARR x0. L. ACCORDING TO TIM PLAT 1X00011. 0104)010 IN VOLML 11 Or ?LAIC PADLIS)) AS. ,N INO COMMR. 111x0100. 11000 SOVTN[OLV or A LI0[ DAANN 1MLL[L MITI 700 10011 LINE Or MAMLR 000LTVAN0 AND 439 MIT [000000[1 070ED1 MIN TUMID 100I00DINLARS. 100111.1[ 1007*, N. cosoVCTLD ACC00DIM0 TO TM[ 01011 0SCR11[I01, YM0MT0 ST 1001.40 00010 11100AYCM COMPANY. ORES NO. 1.1114. DATE Warn 14. L 00S00u s IM0 ON AMID MSS. 'LUIS TO MS .011111.1. 1• •o.[1 00R01MTS e0T1T10 OP ...DM ATT. T.S OAT* SM NOT 1400. aA MT. MOT.. WGr&0L101 ▪ IGNT or TNL MM•LIN To MOL 1[00037*! moms ro0 M• 03 TILLS 0700 SAID 70[013[3 IM 004 SRASOA0LL OMIa1NAL 0RAOIM or 100[100, AVOUT0, ASS. 700 b7*I as 0[DICATI0 00 TM SLAT. N00TSRIDNL AND SS00*M1S CONTAINED IN DULARATIOM Or 00t1Rlvc RST00011000 AND mumm.13 AS nano 10011011, mcoso001 mule Y As. 1941 R ro Iwo 00.1 DI70T AM0 /011 1100111CAT10. Or EDAM 01901CTI0XS •0 14[0000 ATTACH., O 01040100 )017003[1 11, 1941 Rrro)001a IMP. 9O1SS MCMOMTMT AND /OR 000101100104* Or 1010 *0010001001 AS MUM ATTACH W I 1107.1101 1, IPM P A [CCOiDING NO., 00040 • 000000MT *00704 MODIFICATION 01 0110 00000000000* AM 044000 minl0l RLCORGIUI SSOUAAT 10. MS O 74000105 00.1 411110 AMNO[NT SD /0R M001fICAT0Ox 01 SAID 1[Sa1471000 AS I0O*T0 AT0An00l 7[000001 MARVA. 10, ISO Movable,' M.1 0111/10 Cg*TIM MS Or 1010 IMST +MOO Nos RMOAED MD00 STCOMMI. M0. INCWIV[. . IMCWMIVL, *101111 TNSOVO0 0SSlf• A[MOtMT 1010 /00 MODISCATIOM Or SAID RTS0RI CTIOOS AS 040100 ARAnEDI O[D000001 MT 14, • 110010)00 N0. 0001 01.4)0)0 00[0001 AM/MI MOOII0CAT /000 01 SAID *01SICT1000 As NTRITO RAOEDI St 000001 PLASM 10. 1041 IncoRDING M.I Nrtr IW1 i.. RSE 1400 110100 1 O 1 STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY P.O. Box 47600 • Olympia, Washington 98504 -7600 • (206) 407 -6000 • TDD Only (Hearing Impaired) (206) 407 -6006 March 21, 1994 Mr. L. Rick Beeler City of Tukwila 6300.Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila WA 98188 Dear Mr. Beeler: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the determination of nonsignificance for the conversion of an existing warehouse into two retail stores, proposed by Best Products Company Inc. ( #L93- 0090). We reviewed the environmental checklist and have the following comments. (1) To comply with Ecology's Stormwater Management Manual for the Puget Sound Basin, the size of the oil and water separator may need to be much larger than anticipated. (2) The applicant proposes to demolish an existing structure(s). Item B.7.a of the checklist asks if there are any environmental health hazards that could occur as a result of the proposal. Improper disposal of solid waste, including demolition waste, can result in environmental health hazards. The applicant should identify the disposal site for the demolition material. In addition, the applicant should be encouraged to pursue mitigating activities such as salvage, reuse, and recycling of the demolition materials. If you have any questions on Comment (1), please call Mr. Ron Devitt with our Water Quality Program at (206) 649 -7028. For questions on Comment (2), please call Ms. Peggy Williams with our (206) 649 -7034. Rebecca J. Inman Environmental Review Section RI:ri 94 -1772 RECEIVED LIAR 2 41994 (-_ t,`; -- COMMUNi I Y DEVELOPMENT cc: Ron Devitt / Janet Thompson / Peggy Williams, NWRO Robert S. Betts, Inc. March 3, 1994 Land Management Cw&rration and Development Mr. Howard Turner Turner & Associates 18420 -24th Place NE Seattle, WA 98155 10423 Main Street Suite Four Bellevue, WA 98004 -5984 Subject: Best Products Company, L93 -0091; SEPA and comments on March lst's drawings Dear Howard, Phone 2061455 -9640 FAX 206/455-1258 This project has reached maturity. The changes we discussed bring us near the "sign -off" stage with respect to staff reviews. There are changes, as discussed below. We both are attempting to complete this review and meet the deadlines. My comments which follow are sent by FAX so that you have as prompt turnaround as possible. I will be able to discuss them with you further, but not until late this morning. Our next meeting, which we scheduled for 2 this afternoon, needs to be rescheduled to Friday at 2PM. That gives you time to make the changes to the plans, and me time to complete both the SEPA and the BAR draft staff reports. Once again, your organization and responsiveness made for a very productive review yesterday. The color samples and elevations arrived in time, which allowed us to proceed immediately with the comments which follow. They fall into three groups this time. SEPA issues, Entry improvements, and Details. SEPA. We must have the Transportation Planning & Engineering study of queues on Andover Park West to complete the driveway's location. This study must go to Ron Cameron for his sign -off. I will prepare the SEPA determination based on Ron's evaluation. Right now, I need to get a preliminary agreement on all SEPA conditions this Friday afternoon, including this one. Thus the sooner the study is done, the R F sooner the sign -off. Further, you need this driveway location in order to complete the landscape and site plans! CEIVED 6) 4 1994 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Howard Turner Best Products Design /SEPA conuitents March 3, 1994 2 Entry Improvements. The changes proposed represent the right step. The "two- dimensional" appearance of the tops of the two retail entries needs improvement. There is too much of a "cut- out" quality to the appearance where the BEST and Future Shop signs are proposed. We think that that appearance can be remedied without substantial expense. We suggest the following solutions: Either recede or protrude the plane behind the actual letters such that there is more visual impact to that area of the entry. Given the height of the building the effect would be apparent if the plane is offset in the range of 2 -3 feet. BEST Entry: The tiles suggested on Tuesday for the BEST entry do add some sparkle, and we encourage you to work with this improvement further. These accent tiles need to be repeated within the cutouts and /or behind the cut -outs on the actual facade by the entry. There should be a scaled progression from the relatively large tiles on top to a medium set at the cut -outs to smaller ones by the doors. Flanking columns should have caps of color, whether of tiles or flashing material that picks up on the dramatic red line above the BEST entry. This motif should be repeated in a similar fashion at the base of the columns. Future Shop Entry: The accent tiles should form some sort of cap and base to the flanking columns. Provide even more visibility to the entry by eliminating the steel pipe columns to the sign pediment area. The "high- tech" look of the interior can be better expressed in this entry area with a grid of reflective strips; the dryvit scoring here will not "read." It is too shallow, too subtle, and needs a bold replacement. For both entries see also my comments on "lighting" which follow. DETAILS Colors (Sheet BAR -4) The colors for the building are satisfactory, with the substitution of the "Dartmouth green for the tiles and canopy fascia at the Future Shop entry. Add the red color to the handrails in the cutouts in the BEST entry. Be sure to show what colors are proposed for ALL the window surrounds and doors to the building. Howard Turner Best Products Design /SEPA coriu.tents March 3, 1994 3 Entries to both Future Shop and Best. Discussed above. Note that the staff's concern about silhouette has been resolved. Thank you for that solution. Landscape plan (Sheet BAR -6) A. Trees. Changes proposed are sufficient. No new comments from staff. B. Sidewalks. Changes proposed are sufficient. No new comments from staff. C. Planters. As discussed on March 1st, ensure the planter at the southwest corner of the building is enlarged, and the two flaking planters to the BEST entry are identical. NEW: we recommend that the parking planter proposed for the eastern tier of stalls be moved north and placed immediately adjacent and south of the 300 sf recycling area. D. Signs. Go ahead and bring in the sign applications. We can process them for the BAR /CPC meeting at the same time, IF they are submitted FRIDAY!!! E. Property line landscape treatment. No changes. F. Building Elevations.(BAR -3) Canopy width is resolved at 6 feet plus fascia. Dimension this in the details. Scored dryvit. The proposed 1/4" v- groove will not "read" even on a bright day. The problem is that what is graphically depicted on the drawings will NEVER be visible, and we are collectively fooling ourselves if we think otherwise. We urge you to focus on this element and propose something that will "read" when built, such that the BAR gets what is being shown in the plans. We understand, for instance, that dryvit can be colored, such that the grid lines could be painted black, or dark green or red or something very contrasting in this grooved area. Howard Turner .Len; !YY ;rvn�.n ++:m �. n� .•c vs•. Best Products Design /SEPA corLents March 3, 1994 4 G. Lighting (sheet BAR -3A) Staff concurs with your recommendations, especially in regard to the proposed uplights at both the retail entries. H. Colored elevations (sheet BAR -4) We need to discuss technique. Rough prismacolor does not do justice to the rough aggregate walls. I. Site Plan (sheet BAR -2). Screening of HVAC units is acceptable. Show the detail. Location of the west driveway from Andover Park West still needs to be resolved. Site lighting is acceptable. Recycling enclosures' location is acceptable. Show its detail, including on the color sheet. T. Perspective drawings will be welcome. That completes staff comments on the project's design. Lets discuss this later this morning, and confirm tomorrow's submittal. S�y, Robert S. Betts, consultant to City of Tukwila DCD a, raxui::.::. n«. y. w.. rnasw, u,:.. u^a raaavu:; vw.: acv41Mi6) n�.] ��rsw: w: bxu: �a •v;expoka:..5xdauyu:v.�:- .�:aAU qua: mxuwak�' d+. a+.- e....., m,......,..+ s,.. w,.«.+ n,-.:...,. n-.,.....,-,:..-....<.,.....«..., na.. x+ u,, r, �o:....., a .M....o.....c...w.,..,,.— ....-- -- w�.n.., F TURNER & ASSOCIATES 2115 N.E. Park Road, Seattle, WA 98105 (206) 523 -7489 May 3,1993, Ms. Moira Bradshaw Planner Dept. of Community Development Tukwila,WA 98188 Dear Ms. Bradshaw, Please find attached the following items for SEPA and BAR applications for project at 240 Andover Park West ( PRE93 -023 ): • Design review application checklist. • Application form • Seven copies of Environmental checklist,Civil engineering preliminary report,Traffic Study, and BAR Criteria answers, and BARI - BAR6, plus survey, stapled together. • Check for $1250.00 • Seven copies of plans,sheets BART - BAR6, plus survey, bound, stapled, and folded • PMTs of BARI - BAR6,plus survey. Call me if there are any questions. Merry X -mas! Hoard R. Turner, AIA RECEIVED DEC 2 11993 DEVELOPMENT To: John P From: Ron C Subject: BEST traffic only Date: Feb 28, 1994 YCerydy- ' ..4-4) Ta 8E-rls f4 z 9107,00' A0.0 �a/'J�EiVTS TO X 7V .9/0)/ .aeot9 gmor. We recently met with BEST and Bob Betts to clarif traffic mits of page 6 and Table 3 of the December 20,1993 Report as w 11 as working through design issues of the site plan. The mitigations based on noon peak data of table II: Southcenter PkWy /Strander 20 $140 $',800 Strander /Andover Pk W 31 $317 $ ",827 Strander /Andover Pk E 15 $135 $',025 Southcenter /Interurban 8 $1,000 $:,000 W Valley /180 8 $475 $ :,800 Total $2.,452 This revises the proposed amount of condition 1; t is based on the Comp Plan Transportation Element which has been arnproved by Tukwila To- morrow and is being used. Previously, volumes le.s than 10 and in cer- tain cases 5, were not included in the mitigation calcs. The new plan includes any noon peak hour trips of the CBD and 'gym peak trips else- where. Item 2 requires frontal and sidewalk improvement. along Strander and along Andover Pk W. This includes trees in accor• with the adopted CBD tree plan. (Noting that BEST is working with Seg:le who is making es- sentially the same improvements across the street The plans for BEST's widening will require our approval.) Item 3 Channelization on Andover Pk W will need t• provide the TWLTL and LTL for Strander as discussed at the meeting =nd marked on their drawings. Item 4 Coordinating Strander with Segale's constr ction and improve- ments was previously mentioned; the sidewalks are currently being de- leted from the CBD sidwalk Phase I LID scheduled or 1994 construction based on this coordination. Item 5 addresses relocating the signal pole in th The signal pole will need relocating and that cos ward the mitigation costs. The design and partic (mast arm length) will need our approval. northeast corner. will be credited to- larly head alignment Drainage, coordination, access, lighting, and int- rconnect conduit de- tails of the design are understood to be worked o t to meet city needs with the final plans. The purpose of this comment is to note that co- operative approach and not need the detailing. j 3 Cr*. OPYr Zry ify TOCAOWS • r k..i1,11s1 ,posi I•9 STOUR? r -roars o $ 4 Pw yi. 'rV PCS efA.JSC stP6> ige,fr 21VSSY VOW' Titan. fs"I p Cloy imAs K s toe) V :.?Tres 5 1,1 } } MOM facade VIEW 70 VAT' BEST ZIy i -Iy 0614 To c•sss• �7.r�.r^J'`si- tx- ...... .'q•c _':?^ F ._. �: �' .... dv.. 'M °� i 'ffi" ^>Zi" _ . se"), s /4/7y Sou.'r'if FiAGIDC wew wes•T afrine nM" ENTPy ztvAfie 9N - s fTe- H 6 O Rid Resr- t/y Mee VW' f4cAJW vrE• To sawr# WE BEAT ANYONE S LOCALLY ADVERTISED PRICE tesr fr /fie e-ortfiftnfie. Corr De.",- elisr grer S ere . ,..*; S A 1,1 60,4" Cir1 se.00- tr-ihr--- (no S rTir ..• (Also's' DE7r 2/419i9,1 011140%. (Ohattotiv c, $424414r (111n04 • irei0•• P WON. NO CAC A -L 1 C DEL r" ;11:4V f•• , ."* 11.7.141, ' _„ '-'4-14-NYV..?': '2'10 . • • ,•■••'-..•••• A 1 . , , • . ' . . .„ . , • , ;•;;;:'•.: • •er t. • • -f ••• le • •• . ./..f• • 4, : .1? :".• • .•41;„ • -ur;. . • • • • '" • ) • - .•• .A11= : • • 1( • , • .; •- *At, 'Zs , -,••••• ' :11011.?; ■••••; , • • ..•^I'dr'• 4•- **:7•"W;;741.4,r1"--.'Ile.7•FX.4K` .J11:044CtiVILV,UZE " • Ot Yi•n4:C;;;•01.i• , •...:4c. ... ,,,.,,J,k. Idir, Wk.... —;;1, •-,i1S—t"' -..... „ . . .4/ q