Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPermit L92-0050 - NORTHWEST EXPO CENTER - MCLEOD EXHIBITION FACILITY DESIGN REVIEWl92-0050 epic 26-90 l92-0052 mcleod exhibition facility design review PLANNING DIVISION COMMENTS DATE: March 25, 1998 PROJECT NAME: Northwest Expo Center PLAN CHECK NO.: D98 -0070 Plan Reviewer: Contact Nora Gierloff at (206) 431 -3670 if you have any questions regarding the following comments. 1. The parking dimensions shown on SDI and SD3 do not meet City standards. Compact parking stalls must be a minimum of 16 feet in depth with no overhang into landscape areas allowed (see attached code interpretation). The minimum aisle width for two way traffic is 24 feet, some areas on the plan show 22 foot widths. Please correct the parking layout to meet City standards. 2. Pedestrian paths indicated by striping have been eliminated from the parking lots. These are a safety feature that should be retained. 3. The number of planting islands and the size of parking lot landscape areas have been reduced from the approved site plan. On SD4, SD5, SD6 and SD10 trees have been replaced by shrubs and shrubs have been replaced by grass. Please bring the parking lot landscaping back up to a level of quality equivalent to the approved landscape plan. 4. See the attached memo from Don Williams containing .comments about the Interurban Trail intersections and landscaping. SCHEDULE 51111.16,_ r7Vq 7 Quantity 42 r'J � rL��l' 173 41 224 45 18 359 25 j 1 et-•f.,gi 17 vi C% . 1334 X1:3 38 c5 39 757 624 850 48 .139 42 6L'. 327 2175 / 360 As required As required 79 Symbol X X 0 0 r1 000 Botar" 'Common Nam` Cnlornlnn decumms/ Incense Cedar Crataegus phacnopynrm/ Washington Thom Llquidambar styraciflua/ Sweetgum Llquldambar styraclfhra/ Swectgum Populus nigra'Itallci/ Lombardy Poplar Phuu nlgra/ Austrian Pine Phms dgra/ Austrian Pine Rhus lyphtna/ Staghom Sumac Rhus lyphtna/ Staghom Sumac Tsuga helcrophylla/ Western Hemlock Size /Remarks 6' -761., MB, full and dense to base. 1.3/4" cal., 8' -10' hl., B &0. Matched forms. 2" cal., min. 10' -12' 61, matched forms, branched as approved, B &0. 3" cal., min. 14' -16' ht. specimens, matched forms, branched as approved, headed between 6'- 7', MB. 1.3/4" cal., 12'•14'• h1., matched forms ns approved, MB. 8' -10' ht., symetrlully branched as approved, B &B. 17.14' ht., specimens symrtrically branched as approved, D &B. 5' -6' ht., 3.5 stems with lateral branching B &B. 10'•12' hl. specimens, min. 5 stems with lateral branching, B &B. Deciduous Street Tree to match existing 0 South 1581h. Arbutus uncdo'compacla'/ Compact Strawberry Tree Arbutusuredo/ Strawberry Tree Agapanlhus 'Peter Pan'/ Lily- of -The -Nile Euonymus alala'compacti / Winged Euonymus Ilex crenaa'Crecn Lustre/ Green Lustre Holly Mahonia aqulloliurn/ Oregon Crape Pint mugh mughus/ Mugho pine Plltosporum lobira 'Wheelers Dwarf'/ Dwarf Japanese Tobin Prunus lusltanica/ Portugal Laurel Prunus lattroccracus'Otlo Luyken? Otto Luyken Laurel Prunus laurnccracus 'Otto Luyken'/ Otto Luyken Laurel 12.3..::23 I'yracantha mohavc/ Eirelhorn tEEtRosa rugosa'Alba./ Ramonas Rose 'eifi1S'4' WO EMI Symphoricarpm albus/ Conunon Snowberry Viburnum plicatum tomentosum/ DoublrNe Viburnum Iledera helix/ English Ivy Seeded Lawn Sodded Lawn Myrica calllornica/ Pacific Wax Myrtle 10' -12' h1., 0 &D, symetrically branched to base 04' O.C., prune to create a level ht. 0 7-0" and consistent 3' width using guidelines. 2-1/2" cal., 12.14' ht., B &B. Branched as approved. 15" -18" ht. /spr., full compact growth. Single row 0 36" O.C. spacing 0 frail /parking frontages. 36 "•42" hl. symctrleatiy branched to base, hardened growth. 5 gal. cont., vigorous established clumps, hardened growth. 15" -18" ht. /spr., uniformly branched. B&B 042" O.C. triangular spacing. 18" -21" ht. /spr.,compact to base, hardened growth 0 30" Triangular spacing. 18' -21" ht., full and dense to base 0 36" O.C. triangular spacing. 24"30" ht. /spr., 1160, full and dense 0 42" O.C. triangular spacing. 17-15" hl. /spr., compact to grade, hardened growth 0 2' O.C., triangular spacing. 24 %30" hl. /spr. compact 10 grade, hardened growth. 21 " -24" hl. /spr., B &B, compact to Gast, 0 36" O.C. triangular spacing. 12" -15" hl. /spr., B &B or cont. compact to base 036" O.C. triangular spacing. • 21 " -24" hl. /spr, full and dense to base. Single row 0 42" O.C. 0 West properly line, 42" O.C. triangular spacing elsewhere. 15 " -18" hl. /spr., 4 stems min., 11,11. or cont. 0 42" O.C. triangular spacing. 5 gal. cont., 24 " -30' hl. /spr.0 42" O.C. triangular spacing. hl. /spr., B &B, branched as approved. 1 gal. cont. w /min. (5) 12" runners 0 30" O.C. Triangular spacing. Sue spec. Section 02931 See spec. Section 02932 42" -48" ht./ spr., II &B, Compact to grade. hardened growth. e-I l.t_s -free s SYMBOI. Et MANUBACIUREIO /MOIM1. NI 6111EIt Itolnblyd 1817 S.AM-I'101 .15 5rnr, Rainbird (6(2.SAM•('Rr -12 Serb, ltalnbird 12112•SA61- 10Series Rainbird 1812.1Ah•1'(L'1•15SST Rainbird 1812•SAkbl'lt4•151:ST Rainbird ('E11 Series BACKFI laN 1'U0VI N FEB A?': ".1111.'• L'quipnu•nl rspthvvt: Banditti 1>C•QT' -200 Manual Gate Valve Manual Drain Valve Rainbird 31(C llucknaav 2501.1 Rainbird TM Series Laterals • )'VC Class 21' , sue a, tido,. htinuni nt size 3/4 ". Minimum lc: mar Main Line • ITC Class 250, sere ; no, Minimum 21" rover. PRIOR 'TO START OI' CONSTItLCr(ON VE1111 Y rU GI" i A1' LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT OP ANY DISCOO)'.1NCIL, NOTES 1. Shaving Is required fur ALL Irrigation Linos and Control Va Contractor Is responsible for verification of sue of all shoe 2. htainllnc shown running parallel to pavement shall t.• inst. 65- tiles -�t11 fish j1 •7 m 7L ] 1 C�� j7r nQ / 4a /it 7 54 Co GOO A trv-at 4-5 Hvbe bnxlln Boded In Queresi, rob SkymeLel 6'7 b oa TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard • Tukwila, Washington 98188 MEMORANDUM Nora Gierloff, Assistant Planner Don Williams, Parks and Recreation Director March 24, 1998 Exhibition Hall Building Permit Comments from the Parks and Recreation Department John W Rants, Mayor A review of the building documents has resulted in several comments and questions that need to be answered. My comments should be considered as requirements in most cases. I would guess that in some instances the plans simply lack enough detail to adequately show what will be done; however, the only way to ensure all requirements is to show them on the plans or list them in an accompanying letter of conditions. Please contact me if you have questions at 433 -1843. 1. When Strander Boulevard opens up as a road, the developer will need to install bollards on the road sides by the sidewalks to prohibit vehicles from entering the Interurban Trail areas. Parks and Recreation Department can provide specifications when the developer requests the information. 2. The Site Plan sheets do not reflect the existing 15 foot wide Interurban Trail and should be shown as an existing condition and easement. 3. Layout Plan Area A does not show how the Interurban Trail route will be developed (no detail) in this congested area (trail, South 156th Street, Nelsen Pl., and a private driveway to Puget property). Bollards, signage, landscaping, and paving to be shown. 4. In the Helen Nelsen area, Layout Plan Area B, there are no comments about the removal of the city-owned green vinyl /steel fencing. The Parks and Recreation Department will want this saved and turned over to that department. Phone: (206) 433 -1800 • City Hall Fax (206) 433 -1833 Nora Gierloff March 24, 1998 Page 2 5. Landscape plans show shrubs and trees near all streets crossing the Interurban Trail. Caution should be given to prevent the plants from creating "blind" corners. This should be thought about as these plants mature in years ahead. The type of tree along the trail, a Washington Thorn, should be reviewed as to its appropriateness at mature size (overhead wires and width reaching into the trail area). If it has thorns, is it a safe tree next to the public trail? Now and in the future, the "trail area," a cross section of safe passage area, should be free of branches protruding into an area a minimum of 8 feet high and 15 feet wide. If any tree protrudes into the trail area, it will eventually be cut back. Perhaps more shrubbery could be used and a careful effort of tree selection done. Hold trees back at least 20 feet from street/driveway crossings. 6. Street lighting should occur where the trail crosses all streets /driveways for visibility purposes, just as if it were a street intersection. 7. Wide (12 foot) smooth street/trail crossings should be installed where trail users approach the street/sidewalk areas -- regular 3 foot wide handicap ramps are not sufficient. Such crossings should have bollards to prevent vehicles from driving onto the trail. 8. If people are using the parking lots near the trail, is it assumed they will use the trail path or walk within the path or walk within the parking driveway areas? Signage should occur to direct people to the hall. Street sidewalks should be at least 8 feet wide. Layout Plan Area C does not show sidewalks along Strander Boulevard (see footnote 4 /SD12). How do people move through these parking lot areas safely? No pathway system in the long parking areas . is indicated. DW /dc MEMORANDUM TO: Kelcie Peterson FROM: John Jimer RE: Exposition Center Permit Revisions B94-0116 DATE: March 21, 1997 Here are my comments on the permit revision submittal. 1. The landscape plan is inconsistent with the BAR approved plan and the previous building permit set. The plant list indicates that there will be 80 fewer trees than before. My count showed even more trees were removed from the plan. The landscape plan needs to be restored to be consistent with the approved plans. Minor changes driven by the changes made to the entry plaza are acceptable. The revised landscape plan when submitted shall clearly identify all changes from the approved plan. 2. Gary Schulz will provide you with comments on the wetland mitigation requirements. 3. Mr. McLeod is proposing, at least on a temporary basis, to utilize an existing parking lot in Renton to meet his parking rather than the parking already approved. The plans do not reflect this. They show the parking pretty much as approved. We will sign off on the parking plans as submitted, however, prior to signing off on occupancy of the building, if he is to rely on the Renton lot for meeting parking requirements, Mr. McLeod will need to address a handful of technical issues: • Obtain necessary City approval for sharing a parking lot with Boeing. Since the Expo center is sharing the parking with Boeing (Boeing weekdays and Expo evenings and weekends), the proposal appears to be subject to the requirements for cooperative parking (TMC 18.56.070). • Proper recordation of lease agreements for use of off -site parking. • Confirmation that safe and comfortable pedestrian access is provided from the Renton site to the facility. • The "non - parking related" facilities associated with a deferred parking lot (such as the Interurban Trail) are provided. • A study may be required to demonstrate that there will be sufficient parking during the weekday when the facility cannot use the Boeing parking. I called to discuss this with Mr. McLeod. He wasn't in, so I left a quasi - garbled message on the machine. I don't know if I'll get to speak to him before going on vacation, so I would appreciate you passing on these comments when you send your revision letter. Mr. McLeod may also want to contact Michael Jenkins, as Michael is working on parking ordinance amendments which may help facilitate approval of the Boeing lot. Michael's phone number is 431 -3685. Thank you. cc: Jack Pace Steve Lancaster Gary Schulz Michael Jenkins City of Tukwila John W Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director MEMORANDUM TO: John Jimerson, Associate Planner FROM: Gary Schulz, Urban Environmentalist DATE: April 4, 1997 RE: McLeod NW Exposition Center B94 -0116 - Wetland Mitigation Bonding. I have researched my files and found a letter, dated 2/21/95, from Stuart McLeod - McLeod Development Co. (attached). In this letter directed to Steve Lancaster, Mr. McLeod pledged a wetland mitigation bond amount of $34,335 to cover the 5 -year monitoring program and a plant replacement contingency. This amount was calculated using a City standard of 150% of the original cost estimate, $22,890. A 2 -year bond with renewal as needed was to be provided no later than 9/30/95. To my knowledge the City has not received any wetland bonding or other appropriate security for this project. I have several comments regarding the timing and current scope of wetland bonding. The most significant issue is that the Department of Community Development approved the above bond amount with the applicant's proposal that the wetland and buffer mitigation be installed prior to the development of the remainder of the project. This agreement is stated on page 11 of the Final Mitigation and Monitoring Program, Wetland and Buffer Creation and Enhancements, McLeod Expo Center (Watershed Dynamics, Inc 1994) (attached). Because project development has started and wetlands have been filled, the wetland bonding needs to be calculated covering the entire cost of the wetland mitigation plan and monitoring program. Therefore, a plant replacement contingency would not be needed. In a letter dated 10/22/93 from Don Miles, Miles Consulting, the estimated amount for excavating and planting the wetland mitigation project was $76,940 (attached). The following is needed prior to the issuance of a revised building permit. 1) Due to the time of year, a wetland mitigation security is needed to cover the full cost of the approved wetland mitigation plan until it is installed. It is recommended the installation occurs during the fall of 1997. The wetland bond or other security will be re- calculated to include a recent estimate of these costs. The previous estimate of $76,940 is more than 3 years old is likely to be adjusted by current market costs. 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665 NW Expo Center Memo April 4, 1997 Page 2 2) The original estimated costs for construction management, monitoring, and maintenance by the wetland consultant also needs to be adjusted to reflect current fees for this work. As previously stated, the plant replacement contingency portion of the original bond amount will not be needed if the total installation cost is secured. In summary, because wetlands have been filled the security for mitigation is expanded. Any options to this memo's request will need approval from the DCD Director. Let me know if there are questions. cc: Steve Lancaster, DCD Director Stuart McLeod, McLeod Development Co. McLeod DevelQpment,Co. 213 Lake Street South, Kirkland, WA 98033 (206) 822-4114 Fax: (206) 827 -9990 City of Tukwila Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA. 98188 Attn: Steve Lancaster, Director Dear Steve, RECEIVE" -- FEB 2 2 19gi1 CJMMUi\ DEVELOPNsc., February 21, 1995 As per my discussions with Gary Schulz today, McLeod Development shall provide to city a surety bond of $34,335.00 for wetland mitigation covering monitoring and plant replacement. Bond shall be for 2 years and renewed as needed for a total of 5 years. Bond is required at time of wetland excavation and planting, or no later than September 30, 1995. Should bond not be renewed as agreed, city may lien property and hold property owner liable for amount remaining on bond. Sincerely, Stu eod cc: Gary Schulz PERFORMANCE SECURITY Following the direction of the City of Tukwila, a performance security will be required only for the associated monitoring and reporting elements of the proposed restoration and enhancement program. In addition, a performance security will also be required as a contingency for plant replacement should the onsite monitoring determine that the established threshold criteria are not met. A performance security is not required for the initial onsite construction element of the proposed restoration and enhancement because such construction will be completed prior to development of the remainder of the project. This .Performance Security is to be held by the City of Tukwila. The amount of the Performance Security, determined by the estimated costs associated with the post- construction monitoring programs and reporting requirements will be set prior to construction by the City of Tukwila. In addition, this Security will provide for the replacement of dead plants following initial construction, after the first growing season and as required to meet the plant density goals, and for site hydrology modifications if needed. The Performance Security will be deemed to be released upon meeting the established threshold criteria are met. The estimated costs for the Performance Security has been determined as fpllows: Item A: Onsite construction oversight and final inspection $ 2,240.00 Item B: Project Monitoring Year 1 (vegetation, hydrologic, wildlife, report) Year 2 (vegetation, hydrologic, wildlife, report) Year 3 (vegetation, hydrologic, wildlife, report) Year 4 (vegetation, hydrologic, wildlife, report) Year 5 (vegetation, hydrologic, wildlife, report) $ 5,040.00 $ 3,360.00 $ 1,750.00 $ 1,750.00 $ 1,750.00 subtotal $ 13,650.00 Item C: Invasive plant removal contingency $ 2,000.00 Item D: Plant replacement contingency $ 5,000.00 SUB -TOTAL $ 22,890.00 City of Tukwila 150% Security Requirement $ 34,335.00 PERFORMANCE SECURITY TOTAL $ 34,335.00 MILES CONSULTING •- (206) 451 - 2138:,,'. ' SUITE 211 - BLDG 2 300 - 120th AVE. N.E. BELLEVUE, WA 98005 October 22, 1993 John Pierog City of Tukwila Public Works 6300 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 RE: Site Development Submittal NW Expo Center :RECEIVED OCT 25 1993' TUKVVQLA PUBLIC WORKS Enclosed is a letter from the E.R. Anderson Co. advising of the cost to excavate the relocated wetlands and to plant the necessary materials to establish the growth patterns as proposed in the Watershed Dynamics planting plan. Also attached is a copy of the Watershed Dynamics planting supervision and proposal. We have discussed the bonding issue with Gary Schulz and the conclusion has been drawn that grading should be completed before Occupancy. Therefor, the bonding should relate to the materials planted and the program to monitor the establishment of the mitigated wetland. Gary advised that he would furnish a memo concerning the bonding question. Proposed: Construction Landscaping Monitoring Program Total to be Bonded $68,340 $13,961 $82,301 Please provide a copy of the acceptable bond form used'by the City of Tukwila. sere- r Don Miles Miles Consulting cc: • S . McLeod -=- E.R. ANDERSON Co. General Contractors (206) 453 -8717 • FAX (206) 454 -1667 Lic. No. ER -AN -DC -221 NP October 20, 1993 Miles Consulting 300 - 120th Ave. N.E. Bldg. 2'- Suite #211 Bellevue, WA. 98005 Attn: Mr. Don Miles Ref : response to your 10/18/93 request.re: wetlands mitigation. Dear Don, Pursuant to your request for construction costs pertaining to the wetlands mitigation work at the N.W. Exhibition Center, we offer the following information: $ 8,600.00 68,340.00 $7,940.00 Grade and excavate new wetlands area. New wetlands landscaping. Total construction cost. Please let me know if you should require on this matter. Thanks. Sincerely, E.R. Anderson Co., Inc. Douglas Richardson Project Manager 300 - 120th Avenue N.E. additional Building #2, Suite 217 information Bellevue, WA 98005 City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director March 19, 1998 Mr. Stuart McLeod McLeod Development Co. 213 Lake Street South Kirkland, WA 98033 Re: Wetland Mitigation Bonding for NW Expo Center, 098 -0070. Dear Stuart: We recently received a new building permit application for your project. During our last meeting on 1/26/98 we discussed items needed for the new building permit. I would like to remind you that one of the important issues that has been unresolved for too long is the wetland bonding. Gary Schulz was contacted by your insurance agent and he identified the cost estimates for wetland construction. The amount to cover excavation and planting is $43,277. Using the City's standard requirement of 150 %, the total amount will be $64,915. I am not aware of any documents submitted for this bond to date. We have started processing the new building permit application. However, this sensitive area obligation could potentially delay the project. Please attend to this matter as soon as possible. Feel free call me if we need to discuss this issue further at 206 - 431 -3670. Sincerely yours, le Steven Lancaster DCD Director cc: Gary Schulz, Urban Environmentalist Kelcie Peterson, Permit Coordinator Nora Gierloff, Associate Planner 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431 -3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665 .... City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor :s '4' .. 1908 Department of Community Development MEMORANDUM Steve Lancaster, Director TO: Jack Pace, File FROM: Michael Jenkins DATE: March 19, 1997 RE: Alteration of proposed sign forNorthwestExhibitionCenter (L92 -0050) You requested a review of this file to determine if the signage approved by the Planning Commission in February 1996 can be altered. The proposed alteration, as referenced in Attachment A, would incorporate a 56 square foot medallion for Sterling Savings within the approved sign area. At their February 1996 hearing, the Planning Commission approved a Unique Sign under TMC 19.28.010 (E) for Northwest Exhibition Center as referenced in Attachment B: • Total sign height of 72 feet • A 320 square foot sign advertising the center • A 121 square foot electronic message sign for current events The sign that the applicants now request has the same height and advertising area for the center but has the following revisions: • A 119 square foot electronic message sign for current events • A 56 square foot medallion for Sterling Savings While a new message area will be created for Sterling Savings, the entire message area for this and the electronic board is still within the general framework that the Planning Commission approved. The request for the Sterling Savings medallion is consistent with previous approvals by the Planning Commission concerning signage and, therefore, should be approved. However, installation should be contingent upon approval of a Business License for Sterling Savings for this location. If Sterling is not a tenant of the Exhibition Center their sign would be an off - premises sign, prohibited under TMC 19.28.010(5). Any permanent message on the sign, after reviewing the Sign Code, requires it identify an on -site business with a current business license. Identification would not extend to any products sold on -site, as this would be an off - premises sign by a non city- licensed business. Attachment C are the minutes from the February, 1996 Planning Commission hearing and the conditions imposed by the BAR on the underlying file, L92 -0050. 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665 23'-6" 15'-9" - ,-..- -6" — 6.0 •%, nr•Nt;'' kWtititViNt5010464 +kV ',10.1.\ ti RIPAP17,111!!:11! ttnIflnI rnrntrnwtt It1mII1IIU1 •,W'ii;°...:,..,,,T.‘;:..!'.;•'7,1•11"" or "11.:`, • •. •. ..s • e e-kt 1/8". l'0" ■ • • • • tr:=1,... rtr • • 181" •• • •-•IP:1 • t; • iiciP it* tittkat:IIV :71.17--Mri7.T! • :,,,,,s.r.;;;•;•zy,f3;til.......,:r. `It ati..,..1•14,:te•lak,..t.o;;41.6•4:064.41.mtv., • • • • : • ' • OPTION 1/2 WITHOUT "GATEWAY..." 41-1 act+ it\cpct- !HA ME :At 1 cricaincm ! I ; I : R EV1S1O t City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Rick Beeler, Director ATTACHMENT A CONDITIONS FOR L92-0050 Board of Architectural Review Exhibition Facility DCD Director approval required: 1. Before Phase Two construction, the applicant must provide a parking plan to ensure that parking plans reflect adequate parking which meet city standards and that landscaping is in harmony with the parking plan approved for Phase One. 2. Prior to the issuance of building permits, a detailed drawing which shows the proposed trail must be provided. 3. The south elevation as a secondary entry, will incorporate the metal panel elements and neon lighting above the entry only. 4. Sheet L.1: Five additional trees will be added to parking islands on site and pedestrian cross -walk striping within the PSP &L easement would be shown on revised drawings prior to issuance of building permits. 5. Sheet L.4: Pedestrian canopy design will be detailed on drawings prior to building permit issuance to ensure architectural compatibility with the building design. • 6. Sheet L.4: Lighting shall be installed along pedestrian walkways beneath railroad trestles. 7. Prior to issuance of building permits, the number of bollards within the north plaza area shall be reduced by six and shown on the revised site plan. 8. Sheet L -1: Two trees as shown within the PSP &L Co. easement, south of the Strander.Blvd. access shall be relocated and shifted to the south to space the trees more central within these areas. 9. Design elements shall be added to the front of the building which provide color and which are predominately horizontal in form. Planning Commission Unique Sign: 1. Sign messages (readerboard) shall be restricted to advertising events and services to be provided on -site only. 2. The sign shall be designed to incorporate "Gateway to Tukwila" beneath the readerboard on both faces. /frieceii ,I1 el e--/ 6300 Southcenter Boulevard Suite 11100 • Tukwila. Wa.chlnntnn ' OR 1 RR • !2061 d? 1..71vn • Far. on/) eq 1_2AAC Planning CommissiorL._.iinutes February 22, 1996 L92 -0050: Northwest Expo Center: Page 4 John Jimerson presented the staff report. The proposal is to modify a previously approved sign. The sign was originally approved in 1993. The site is long and narrow, with the building located approximately in the middle of the site. The sign was approved as a "unique" sign, with a condition that "Gateway to Tukwila" also be placed on the sign. The applicant is now concerned with the clutter of the sign and is asking to revise the sign by having "Gateway to Tukwila" removed from the sign. Staff agrees with the request because as you enter the City from the east, that portion of the sign is not visible. Also, as one is leaving the City, that portion of the sign is visible, but they would be entering Renton, not Tukwila. More importantly, the Code does not provide decision criteria to require this be added. Therefore, staff recommends the proposal be approved as submitted. Don Miles, P.O. Box 40143, Bellevue, WA: He stated he has been involved in the design of the project since 1989. The sign is in final design and now they are able to determine how visible the sign will be. Mr. Marvin closed the public hearing. MR. NEISS MOVED TO APPROVE L92 -0050: NORTHWEST EXPO CENTER SIGN REVISION AS SUBMITTED. MR. MERYHEW SECONDED THE MOTION AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. Mr. Marvin adjourned the meeting. Prepared By, Sylvia Schnug A 1-71Ae C-\ ire McLeod Development,Co. 213 Lake Street South, Kirkland, WA 98033 (206) 822-4114 Fax: (206) 827 -9990 John Jimmerson Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 Dear John: Please find the following attached: 1. Copy of parking agreement and easement with Boeing. RECEIVED CITY OF TUKWILA MAR 1 31997 PERMIT CENTER March 11,1997 2. Site plan showing how pedestrians will walk from parking on Boeing property to the Expo Center entrance. 3. City of Renton letter confirming joint parking is allowed. (we have sent them a copy of the Boeing Agreement). 4. Material board showing the change from concrete tilt -up to concrete masonry. Feel free to call if you need additional information. Jesse Tanner, Mayor CIT' -OF RENTON Planning /Building /Public Works Department Gregg Zimmerman P.E., Administrator March 7, 1997 Mr. Stuart McLeod McLeod Development, Co. 213 Lake Street South Kirkland, WA 98033 RECEIVED CITY OF TUKWILA MAR 1 3 1997 PERMIT CENTER Subject: JOINT PARKING AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE BOEING CO. LONGACRES OFFICE PARK AND NORTHWEST EXPO CENTER Dear Mr. McLeod: In response to your letter dated March 3, 1997, the following information is provided. Joint use parking is allowed within the City of Renton per Section 4- 14 -4.E of the Parking and Loading Ordinance. E. Joint Use: 1. The joint use of parking facilities should generally be encouraged within the City. The joint use of parking facilities may be authorized for: a. Those uses which have dissimilar peak -hour demands during the non -peak hours of the lessor. (Ord. 3988, 4- 28 -86) 2. To qualify as a joint -use parking facility, the facility must be located within a radius of seven hundred fifty feet (750') from the buildings or use areas it is intended to serve. 3. A joint -use contract covering a minimum of five (5) years, shall be approved by the Planning /Building /Public Works Department and by the City Attorney for such a parking arrangement to be allowed. (Ord. 3988, 4- 28 -86) 4. (Rep. by Ordinance 4517, 5 -8 -95) 5. Parking areas in shopping centers operate as common parking for all uses. If a shopping center is subdivided, then easements and /or restrictive covenants must grant use and maintenance of common parking access. This ordinance was written from the perspective that both the lessor and the recipient would be located within the City of Renton. In this case, only the lessor is within the City of Renton. Therefore, we are only interested in enforcing that portion of the ordinance that directly impacts the lessor, The Boeing Company. Sections 2 and 3 above, are not a direct concern of the City of Renton and the City of Tukwila would need to ensure that the use meets their Code - requirements. Section 5 is not applicable to this site. The City of Renton does reserve the right to review the contract to ensure that it will not adversely impact the parking requirements of the Boeing Company's office buildings. 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 McLeod Development Co. -- Parking Requiremnts Page 2 March 7, 1997 We do request that a copy of the agreement be submitted to the Development Service Division, City of Renton for review before we can give our approval. If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact me at 277 -5586. Sincerely, Mark R. P, , AICP Project anager cc: Lori Pitzer The Boeing Co. • H: /MP /McLeod ...•••••■10 MARRIOTT RESIDENCE1N BEST WESTERN -3 GW EcT VAI-LeY _) nrr /EAD VILLAGE • TON IN LAtilit.1:13 110,4tiltrif . 917;c7417-Vii, ierr.1.1977.7.!-LH-T-41E,1-17471111rigiti :,-7,..-71+01-1.110fft00 • • . • • •-••••••••••••. ee ••••• ••••••••.... ....•• k•,-•••••=7.■••••• __atL-_-44-.7-4ir „,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ii EFT'i''' 1.74.firtirk*,.614"',uliriatelil!Ille' -.'''. ' _.-----i-l” ------=-----------"- - - . . - ADJACENT EAST PARKING. 50 STALLS AFTER 5:30 AND WEEKENDS: 4(>64. S71/ ,Pe cies 1 ; ieVill/kwZliv_. 4/..'cier• Jily.e.) ciryFLE9SiveD TuKwILA IIIAR I 3 1997 PERMIT Date: 27- Feb -97 11:00:34 From: JOHN -J (JOHN JIMERSON) (- To: STEVE Subject: Northwest Expo Center Message -id: 5269153301000000 Application -name: MHS Steve - I have reviewed the files for NW Expo. Here' my thoughts: 1. Change of materials from tilt up to masonry on two elevations and change of massing on east elevation. I didn't find any colored renderings or elevations, nor color /material board in the files.' The plans in the file were basically the same as the "existing" plans we saw at the meeting. For the material change, I think all we need is material samples in the colors proposed and the color scheme originally proposed, to ensure there isn't significant changes in the colors. Regarding the massing on the east, I feel the lower structure does not provide good building articulation in the first place, and it's elimination will not be detrimental. Combined with the material change, it may even be an improvement. With limited visibility caused by the RR bed and the distance of the building from I405 (about 1300 feet), the east side of the building is the least important for the project. 2. Increased ticket booth area and reduced loading area - We approved this modification about a year ago - a letter was sent granting admin. approval. We should obtain a cut sheet for light standards and modification to landscape islands made to accommodate truck movements. 3. Parking east of site will be in the City of Renton. Because it is not in our jurisdiction, I do not believe the parking lot is subject to our design review and pkg. lot development standards. Also, we do not have any limitations on off -site parking other than guarantee of easement for the reasonable life of the project. I do believe such parking can be counted toward meeting the parking requirements. I suggest that we be provided a plan showing the parking layout (to confirm the number of spaces) and the pedestrian link between the parking and facility. Also, it is important to have them provide documentation from the City of Renton that the parking lot may be used as proposed. And of course, a copy of the instrument that provides the easement. Let me know if you want to review the files or discuss these comments with me. John . City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director February 23, 1996 Stuart McLeod McLeod Development 213 Lake Street South Kirkland, WA 98033 RE: L92 -0050 Dear Stuart: As you know, the Planning Commission approved your request for modification of the Unique Sign at the Northwest Expo Center. This approval allows the "Gateway to Tukwila" to be removed from the sign. If you have any questions regarding this action, don't hesitate to call me at 431 -3663. cerely, Joh Jimerson Ass*ciate Planner 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 22,1996 (Approved 3/28/96) Mr. Marvin opened the work session at 6:10 p.m. Members present were Commissioners Marvin, Meryhew, Neiss, Livermore, Malina. Ms. Stetson was excused. Representing the staff were Steve Lancaster, Jack Pace, John Jimerson and Sylvia Schnug. Mr. Lancaster started out by informing the Commission of a recent issue with the South Lot Development project. The proposed parking would violate the buffer requirements for the stream. The minimum buffer requirements is fifteen feet. The buffer can be reduced to ten feet administratively by the DCD Director. The applicant would then have to build a retaining wall on the edge of the stream. Mr. Lancaster recommended another solution, which would be to try and retain the existing vegetation, which would eliminate some of the parking spaces. The Commission agreed with Mr. Lancaster's recommendation because the applicant has ample parking. Jack Pace provided a briefing to the Commission regarding House Bill 1724. He reviewed the process, how the Bill impacts the City, and the joint meeting between the Council, Commission, and Board of Adjustment. Mr. Marvin closed the work session and opened the public hearing. Mr. Marvin stated that he didn't believe the Planning Commission had enough time to review the Extended Stay Inn's staff report and materials since they received the • documents just one day in advance. Mr. Neiss stated he never received the packet at all. MR. NEISS MOVED TO RESCHEDULE THE EXTENDED STAY PROJECT TO THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING. There was no second to the motion. Mr. Meryhew stated they should probably schedule a special meeting for the applicant rather than make them wait one month. Planning Commission Minutes February 22, 1996 Page 2 MR. MERYHEW MOVED TO MOVE THE BAR ITEM, L95 -0063 TO THE BEGINNING OF THE AGENDA, AHEAD OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING. MR. MALINA SECONDED THE MOTION AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. The Commission then asked for citizen comments regarding the Extended Stay Inn project. Raymond Frye, 2030 92 Ave NE, Bellevue, WA 98004: He noted he was representing ESA, and he just wanted clarification on the process. Mr. Pace indicated they would not have to make their presentation this evening. The project would be continued in two weeks at a special meeting. Mr. Marvin closed the BAR public hearing. Mr. Marvin opened the Planning Commission public hearing. L96 -0005: Star's Children's Wear: John Jimerson presented the staff report. Mr. Jimerson noted a correction to the staff report. The increase was actually to 194 sq. ft., which is a 44 sq. ft. increase. The Tukwila Sign Code allows an increase in the sign area when the building is setback more than twice the minimum zoning setback. In this case it is more than 101/2 times the minimum 20 foot setback. The sign would consist of channel lettering and interior illuminated can lettering. It's consistent with other signs in the area. Staff recommends the Planning Commission grant the 44 sq. ft. increase in sign area. Ron Wittenberg, CSI Electrical Advertising, 12832 NE 14 Pl., Bellevue, WA 98005 Mr. Wittenberg added that the layout of the sign has changed. The side -by -side wording has been changed to having the word, "Stars" on top. Mr. Jimerson noted for the record, that staff believes the revised sign orientation to be acceptable as long as everything else still meets the Sign Ordinance. Staffs recommendation still stands. There were no citizen comments. Mr. Marvin closed the public hearing. MR. NEISS MOVED TO APPROVE L96 -0005: STAR'S CHILDREN'S WEAR BASED UPON STAFFS FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS. MR. MERYHEW SECONDED THE MOTION AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 February 22, 1996 L96 -0003: Eagle Hardware and Garden: John Jimerson presented the staff report. He noted the applicant is requesting to increase the quantity and size of the internal informational signs. The Code allows four internal information signs which cannot exceed six square feet. To expand that, it has to come before the Planning Commission. The applicant is asking for seven signs. The proposed entrance and delivery signs are proposed to be 15 square feet each. A seventh sign does not provide direct information, it separates the vehicular oriented use from the pedestrian use. Staff is recommending that the sign be changed so that each of the letters is reduced by four inches. That would reduce the sign by approximately 18 -19 square feet. There is no logo on the sign, no reference to the company name, a limited use of colors and the sign meets the intent of the Code. Mr. Malina said he would like to see the last exit sign enhanced by having it say "Receiving Exit ". Mr. Meryhew noted the customer wouldn't see that sign as they are leaving. Mr. Malina stated he was concerned with the blind corner coming out of this exit. Paul Morris, 981 Powell Av SW, Renton, WA 98055: Mr. Morris said the company concurred with the conclusions and recommendations made by staff. He added that they will control the exiting out of that door with a gate. Mr. Livermore suggested that the applicant place "Caution" signs on the interior of the lumberyard. Mr. Malina stated for the record that his son works for the Eagle Hardware Corporation and Mr. Livermore stated that he owns stock in Eagle. Neither the applicant or audience members objected to them deciding on this project. Both Mr. Livermore and Mr. Malina didn't feel their affiliations would bias their decision - making. There were no citizen comments. Mr. Marvin closed the public hearing. MR. LIVERMORE MOVED TO APPROVE L96 -0003: EAGLE HARDWARE, TO INCREASE THE NUMBER OF SIGNS FOR INTERNAL INFORMATION WITH STAFF' S CONDITION THAT THE LARGE SIZE LETTERING BE REDUCED FROM 28 INCHES TO 24 INCHES. MR. NEISS SECONDED THE MOTION AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. Planning Commission l ■inutes February 22, 1996 Page 4 L91- 0050: Northwest: Expo Center: John Jimerson presented the staff report. The proposal is to modify a previously approved sign. The sign was originally approved in 1993. The site is long and narrow, with the building located approximately in the middle of the site. The sign was approved as a "unique" sign, with a condition that "Gateway to Tukwila" also be placed on the sign. The applicant is now concerned with the clutter of the sign and is asking to revise the sign by having "Gateway to Tukwila" removed from the sign. Staff agrees with the request because as you enter the City from the east, that portion of the sign is not visible. Also, as one is leaving the City, that portion of the sign is visible, but they would be entering Renton, not Tukwila. More importantly, the Code does not provide decision criteria to require this be added. Therefore, staff recommends the proposal be approved as submitted. Don Miles, P.O. Box 40143, Bellevue, WA: He stated he has been involved in the design of the project since 1989. The sign is in final design and now they are able to determine how visible the sign will be. Mr. Marvin closed the public hearing. MR. NEISS MOVED TO APPROVE L92 -0050: NORTHWEST EXPO CENTER SIGN REVISION AS SUBMITTED. MR. MERYHEW SECONDED THE MOTION AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. Mr. Marvin adjourned the meeting. Prepared By, Sylvia Schnug 23'-6" 18'-3" 23'-6" 18'-3" 40PliVicif141 •"; • • L ;43 EMEITIVElliiiirf Urfgartat 77. ' '3, • "i • ' 's :••• ' • \-`4, "A'r` . !s• IT; . . OPTION #1 WITH "GATEWAY...." • :1- b 3%, _ . -7,--;:,---.2112. , 7-.14-4 OPTION 2 WITHOUT "GATEWAY..." 23' -6" 18' -3" OPTION ;F2 WITHOUT "GATEWAY..." • REC.r.,"ED CITY OF TUKWILA FEB 0 2 1996 PERMIT CENTER DESCRIPTION NAME DATE R E V I S I O N S HEATH 4 11805 N F 116th St Kirkland, WA 98034 (206) 623 -31 0O 12 -14 -95 DATE DAD DRAWN BY BRUCE BRYANT SALESPERSON NOTED SCALE This Is an original design created for the exclusive use of the customer. Until transfer by sale, all rights reserved and Is not to be reproduced In any manner without permission from Heath Signs. TUKWILA, WA. SHEET ONE OF 1 DESIGN # SE- 628c -95 231 -6" 18' -3' 2318'" 18'-3" 4. `r br r r rf r , .rte �► ♦r • r • ,i Y. m I. 'O TEWAY TO Ttllt_ • 1 n �l1 ■ ✓ 7 ! •'yi n.,I4C C.,� ZZc`L, En. � N C N Ni:i�i'iL5ll OPTION 11 WITH 'GATEWAY... OPTION 02 WITHOUT 'GATEWAY..' CITY OFTLII. ILA FEB 0 2 1996 PERMIT CENTER • INAIN:I GU11 Or3CRDr1ON I I I I I 1 I I 1 I I I I I I I 1 I I I R E V I S I O N S 11805 Kirklan (206) DATE DRAWN 8ALE8P SCALE This Is ar created fc of the ow transfer b reserved reproduce without p Heath Sig CUSTC DATE BY- LANDL DATE BY CI TUN SHE DESIC LI r i -, 1 C1o2 1� OPTION #2 WITHOUT'GATEWAY..' 1/8' =1'O• ^ITYOFTUn VlL\ FEB 0 2 1996 PERMIT CENTER •'NAVAI CIE 1 DEECR•••• I I 1 I I I I 1 1 I � I I I I I F I E V I S 1 0 N 8 HEATII 11805 N E 1161h St. Kirkland, WA 98034 (206) 623 -3100 12 -14 -95 DATE DAD DRAWN BY BRUCE BRYANT SALESPERSON NOTED SCALE This Is an original design created for the exclusive use of the customer. Until transfer by sale, all rights reserved and Is not to be reproduced In any manner without permission from Heath Signs. CUSTOMER APPROVAL DATE BY LANDLORD APPROVAL DAT E BY C TUKWILA, WA. SHEET ONE OF 1 DESIGN # SE- 628c -95 ". City of Tukwila John W Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Prepared February 15, 1996 HEARING DATE: February 22, 1996 APPLICANT: Stuart McLeod, McLeod Development Co. PROPOSAL: Modify approved Unique Sign by removing "Gateway to Tukwila" from both sides of the sign. LOCATION: I -405, East of West Valley Highway. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Tukwila Urban Center ZONING DISTRICT: Tukwila Urban Center (TUC) SEPA DETERMINATION: No additional SEPA review is required. STAFF: John Jimerson ATTACHMENTS: A. Applicant request for modification. B. Partial site plan. C. Sign details as approved and as proposed. D. Visibility Analysis. E. Excerpts from Staff Report (3/25/94). F. Excerpts from BAR minutes (3/25/94). 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665 McLeod Sign L92 -0050 February 22, 1996 FINDINGS VICINITY /SITE INFORMATION 1. Pro-iect Description: The site has been approved by the BAR for development of a 250,000 square foot exhibition center and accessory parking. The applicant is requesting a modification to an approved freestanding sign located on the north end of the site, just south of I -405. The applicant is requesting removal of the "Gateway to Tukwila" portion of the sign. 2. Site and Surrounding Land Uses: Currently the site is undeveloped. A building permit has been issued for construction of the exhibition facility. The surrounding properties are improved with a variety of hotels, restaurants, commercial buildings and warehouses. BACKGROUND The Northwest Expo Center was approved by the BAR on March 25, 1994 (File No. L92- 0050). At that meeting, the Planning Commission also approved the large sign with an electronic readerboard that is under consideration tonight. The BAR approved the sign as a "Unique Sign" with a condition that "Gateway to Tukwila" be placed on both sides. DECISION CRITERIA The City Sign Code defines Unique Signs as follows: 19.28.010(E): Unique Signs (must be) specifically approved by the Planning Commission if in their judgement the effect of the proposed sign would not contribute to a cluttered, confusing, or unsafe condition. Unique Sign means a building or other structure of unique design and exterior decor, where the entire structure may be considered an advertising device, including but not limited to shapes imitating hats, boots, tires, statues, parts of anatomy or manufactured items such as airplanes, cars, boats, carriages, or symbols which may or may not contain lettering. The changes to the sign are requested by the applicant on the grounds that the "Gateway" message raises safety and visual concerns and that it makes the sign too busy. McLeod Sign L92 -0050 February 22, 1996 The sign design is clean and uncluttered. There are three messages on the sign. The "Expo Center" portion mounted on a graphic design at the top, the electronic readerboard in the middle and the "Gateway to Tukwila" at the bottom. The Expo Center and readerboard portions of the sign will command most of the attention of motorists, the "Gateway" sign is not likely to not command attention. Attachment D provides a photo- analysis of the visibility of the sign from eastbound and westbound traffic on I -405. For westbound traffic, the "Gateway to Tukwila" portion of the sign will be marginally visible at best. The photo provided is from the emergency lane. Presumably, more of the sign will be a little visible from the drive lanes, but we do not know if the "Gateway" sign would be visible or not. The sign will enjoy better visibility for eastbound traffic. The photo shows the sign clearly visible from the emergency lane. Presumably, the visibility would be less in the driving lanes to the left. The sign is located near the Tukwila /Renton boundary. Eastbound motorists will enter Renton immediately after passing the sign. CONCLUSIONS 1. The proposal to remove "Gateway to Tukwila" from either side of the sign is not likely to result in significant improvement to safety issues or visual clutter. 2. Confusion to eastbound motorists can be eliminated by removing the "Gateway to Tukwila" sign on the west side. This would reduce the appearance to eastbound vehicles that they are entering Tukwila at that point. 3. The sign represents not only a unique site and unique development, but it acts as an important focal point at this entrance into the community. 4. Staff has not identified any links between the approval criteria for a Unique Sign and the condition requiring a gateway message. RECOMMENDATION Given the lack of linkage between the approval criteria and the initial requirement, the lack of visibility for westbound motorists and the possible confusion created for eastbound motorists, the Planning Division recommends approval of the request to remove "Gateway to Tukwila" from sign. II. McLeod Development,Co. 213 lake Street South, Kirkland, WA 98033 (206) 822-4114 Fax: (206) 827 -9990 • Steve Lancaster City of Tukwila Planning Department 6300 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA. 98188 Dear Steve, January 3, 1996 This letter is a request for architectural review board approval to remove the "Gateway to Tukwila" sign that was part of the sign approval for the Northwest Expo Center. As currently approved, the sign identifies the Northwest Expo Center and the electronic readerboard advertises events and services on site. The third "Gateway" message raises safety concerns and visual concerns about the sign becoming to busy. We believe with the sign simplified as requested above, the overall appearance and safety will be enhanced. Sincerely, cc: John Jimerson ATTACHMENT A JAN 05 1996 rommuiNa , DEVELOPil4Ef J1. Typical Bumper Overhang 4' Trail ''• I • *./ Typical Bumper Overhang @ Property line 'Z. rot, PrErnd• F...nnsm oftul • Um: 1 i .00111. .../A• AM... LA:,! LI . • , 0..CA .10.....• M.M.T... ' AMT. ... ..... ... , ..., a. AT... .......... % s I 1 I , , I . 1 ' ma... I. ■••■•• lisp 1.00. •t...Lv% "*. ...-". \;l, ............./ 'i I'V'..........__ .4 ' Puget Power Parking/North\ 195 Stalls) • ..... dm." .. MARY,. .• mon. .00••••• •MMI•• woo Awn, 1 nor • Section ili@ Nlarth Parking Area Tvo. Peciestrian Smiling / Svrnbol • 41 f • TOM.. k/ egy-/D) e..••••••••••••• INA ••••.••••Tr.....,....,•-•• Union Pacific Railroad .7. 6t) ,1!0 . 405 Sign/Reaclarboard — . - ,y/..1.11.1100\ 11. \ , 1$.. - ...MN ••••••••• ■••. ••• ' ' C.: \' \ \''• ' :... ""'"." V • • ''.;1/4. A. . ., . . • • .. •■••••• ....... • •I••■•• 1 ■.• . .. . • ■ • . t 4'''''" r".., " " ..7.•!? • • i • • . • • • ., . RA.■•■4■•■1. ..• . r \ . Eno. Pla. • . I..II. '''. 14.:177.- • ' ' ...• • - ... -=..........:::::............ -.. ........../.... ----Ferennon Ponds s • ; 'ii • V: ''i • ........i-._.......—_-...-.-.:7'7••"'"`7 ,"7-1."..r.-5.'... ..... . . — . t6..,,, Trur;O•o. •t • +a .......e V.V. I • (6.--6D ....:7 :!:' ,''' ''.--'C \'74•\r--.. ,,. .:. u______, ,clx____..01,./ .44.71.1.1- ., A......„....:. ........................./ M.12.•1.■ 6 '1 ,,t_ f : _.._ _,,,,,_•.....L--:•••:-•••'"'""":1-'-'-'---.-------------- NosrtutParking Area --7.•-.7:11- ' - 7 (;"Tic . ■:* ' ._....--- 1— __--- 1.7.!""...s=— ---. —.. — -- — Burlington Northern Railroad .. . --- - - — — - For Plant Sclieoule/See South Pariunc Am Plan Ise: r_r...r.n. ,T C., 1. wont Soot •. •1 ••031 ••114 La•EMIT Manimanst Aralsolo 501 None. 0•1141.. 101 1..d ...... beat°, W4.11110. :00.0112.3•60 Exhibition Facility Tukwila. Washington •■• North Parking Area L-3 RECE!VED CITY OF TUKWILIk FEB 0 2 1996 12=121tArr nctirrcel 1 -405 HEADING EAST tij /: > UA L SYSTEMS r S TE%/ S Since 1940 SEATTLE YAKIMA TRI- CITIES 1 -405 HEADING WEST v -.a 1 6 VISUAL SYSTEMS Since 1440 SEATTLE YAKIMA TRl- CITIES ATTACHMENT C OPTION 11 WITH 'GATEWAY...! • OPTION 12 WITHOUT 'GATEWAY._' 1/g =1'Q RF nArc� CITY OFTUKWILA FEB 0 2 1996 PERMIT CENTER • MAYEI.".RE Cri:RO .7'OM R E V I S 1 O N S HEATH 11805 N F 11fitn St Kirkland. WA 98034 (? 0 6) 6 2 3 - 3 1 0 0 12 -14 -95 DATE DAD DRAWN BY BRUCE BRYANT SALESPERSON NOTED SCALE This Is an original design crated for the exclusive use of the customer. Until transfer by ale, all rights reserved and la not to be reproduced In any manner without permission from Heath Signs. TUKWILA, WA. SHEET ONE OF 1 DESIGN # SE- 628c -95 23'-6" 18'-3" 23'-6" 18'-3" $1, 4.4. 10,4' • it L ATTAC kftLIAIVA • ;,.. , .• r".2•,;•• VW`'' 4-2 •,‘.41' ; ; 24..•22> • ;i..7:222,1,2;.,', • ,4 • • , • , - 120 OPTION #1 WITH "GATEWAY...." 1/8" = OPTION #2 WITHOUT "GATEWAY..." 23'-6" 1 W-T -" •••••• EI .11 3 3 • • • •, .-• 1_ ATTACHMENT C • • •(:::;;;,,.,0''.4:.4 A .. OPTION #2 WITHOUT "GATEWAY..." r REIVED CITY OF TUKWILA FEB 0 2 1996 PERMIT CENTER NAVE DATE DESCRIPTION R E V ISIONS HEATH • 11805 N 116th SI Kirkland. WA 98034 (2 0 6) 6 2 3-3100 12-14-95 DATE DAD DRAWN BY BRUCE BRYANT SALESPERSON NOTED SCALE This Is an original design created for the exclusive use of the customer. Until transfer by sale, all rights reserved and Is not to be reproduced in any manner without permission from Heath Signs. CUSTOMER APPROVAL DATE LANDLORD APPROVAL DATE TUKWILA, WA. SHEET ONE OF 1 DESIGN # SE-628c-95 DwineIIt VISUAL SYSTEMS Since 1940 3614 Sixth Ave. S. Seattle WA 98134 -2213 1 -800- 477 -SIGN (206) 292 -8865 FAX (206) 682 -4781 March 12, 1993 Denni Shefrin City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Blvd Tukwila, Washington 98188 FAX: 431 -3665 Denni, Enclosed please find photographic representations depicting the approximate size and location of our proposed main identity sign for "Northwest Expo Center ". The intent is to give a visual idea as to how this display will interact with the inmediate environment, specifically the 1 -405 freeway, power poles and lines, trees and buildings. The exact location and height will be confirmed by an on site flag test, which will involve hoisting a full sized representation into place. The current location, size and height are the result of a preliminary flag test that we performed last June. At that test we lifted a 4' X 8' sheet of plywood as a target and drove 1 -405 in both directions until reaching a suitable height. That test indicated the curvature and rise in the west bound lanes as being the most difficult obstacles to overcome from both an advertising and a safety standpoint. The height that we are currently settled on appears to be the minimum height at which this sign will be effective, particularly from west bound traffic. We are showing the bottom of the sign approximately 12' above the existing railing. This seems to be a height that will allow motorists adequate viewing time and at a viewing angle that will be comfortable. I have had a discussion with Nancy Guinn (440 -4390) and Dave Deede at the Washington State Department of Transportation. This sign as proposed will meet all of their requirements. Since Bruce Bryant DWINELL'S VISUAL SYSTEMS enclosures ATTACHMENT D t,-J?, 1 6 i 93 Ci' ••, ; :\ ;j-r.,! Designers, Manufacturers and Installers of Custom: Signage /t/ Awnings // Electronics /1/ Vinyl Graphics Staff Report to the Planning Commission/BAR L92 -0050: McLeod Page 17 permit issuance to ensure architectural compatibility with the building design; 6. Sheet L.4: Lighting shall be installed along pedestrian walkway beneath railroad trestles; 7. Prior to issuance of building permits, the site plan shall be revised to reflect a reduction of the number of bollards proposed in the plaza areas. PLANNING COMMISSION - UNIQUE SIGN The City Sign Code defines Unique Signs as follows: 19.28.010 (E): Unique Signs (must be). specifically approved by the Planning Commission if in their judgement the effect of the proposed sign would not contribute' to a cluttered, confusing or unsafe condition. Unique Sign means a building or other structure of unique design and exterior decor, where the entire structure may be considered an advertising device, including but not limited to stapes imitating lints, boots, tires, statues, parts of arauomy or manufactured items such as airplanes, cars, boats, carriages, or symbols which may or may not contain lettering. Applicant's Response: "The photographic representations depicting the approximate size and location of our proposed main identity sign for "Northwest Expo Center ". The intent is to give a visual idea as to how the display will . interact with the immediate environment, specifically, the I -405 freeway, power poles and lines, trees and buildings. The exact location and height will be confirmed by an on -site flag test, which will involve hoisting a full sized representation into place. The current location, size and height are the result of a preliminary flag test that we performed last June. At that test we lifted a 4' x 8' sheet of plywood as a target and drove I -405 in both directions until reaching a suitable height. That test indicated the curvature and rise in the west bound lanes as being the most difficult obstacles to overcome from both an advertising and a safety standpoint. The height that we are currently settled on appears to be the minimum height at which the sign will be effective, particularly from west bound traffic. We are showing the bottom of the sign approximately 12' above the existing railing. This seems to be a height that will allow motorists adequate viewing time and at a viewing angle that will be comfortable. I have had a discussion with Nancy Guinn and Dave Deede at the Washington State Department of Transportation. This sign as proposed will meet all of their requirements." ATTACHMENT E Staff Report to the L92 -0050: McLeod Planning Commission/BAR Page 18 Staff's Response: The sign would be setback 85 feet from the north property line, and 50 feet from the north parking area. The proposed sign complies with the Department of Transportation criteria for signs adjacent to freeways. Because the Sign Code does not provide specific review criteria for unique signs except for the description above, it is important that the following discussion demonstrate why the proposed sign is unique and why the proposed height and size is justified. What characteristics make the proposed sign unique? a. Neither an exposition facility nor sign of this design are commonly found in many cities the size of Tukwila. The sign helps to emphasize this location as a gateway into Tukwila; b. The sign not only promotes facility events, but is a free - standing structure which introduces the public to the unique architectural elements which are integrated in both the sign and building; c. The design of the sign lends visual harmony to the parking area and to the exhibition facility through the use of consistent architectural elements such as banding and contrasting colors, neon lighting and the metal panels. The facility's logo is festive and the layering of design elements such as the metal mesh, the square background with gradations. of blue, the way the lettering and the yellow banner extends beyond the square background which adds dimension; e. Due to several overhead utility lines, this area appears very cluttered. The sign would enhance the appearance by erecting a structure which announces the Northwest Expo Center located at Tukwila's gateway. f. The Sign Code stipulates that unique signs must not contribute to a cluttered, confusing or unsafe condition: This area is already cluttered by several overhead utility lines. The sign would detract from the existing clutter. The sign design and concept would draw the eye away . from the clutter, reduce the confusion by calling attention away from nearby utility and vertical elements. Further, the sign would safely communicate current and upcoming events. Staff Report to the L92 -0050: McLeod Planning Commission/BAR Page 19 What is the justification for the sign size and height? a. The total height would be 72 feet, however, the amount of sign visible from the I -405 bridge deck excludes a significant portion of the sign structure. It is essential that the portion which is visible can be read clearly from the east and west bound approaches where vehicles both ascend and descend past the facility; b. The photo montages (Attachment x.) shows I -405 heading west. This picture illustrates the amount of visible sign area; c. The readerboard is one of the best ways to advertise facility events. It is important that the readerboard be easily read by both east and westbound traffic and that the lettering isn't so small so as to cause traffic to slow. down. You will notice that portions of the readerboard may be blocked by on- coming traffic. The photo analysis demonstrates that visibility would be lost if the sign height would be reduced; d. The frequency at which messages would change would be approximately every 4 seconds. This is about the same frequency as the Tacoma Dome sign. CONCLUSION FOR PLANNING COMMISSION - UNIQUE SIGN The proposed Northwest Expo Center exemplifies a unique use of an equally unique parcel of land which not only favors a certain strength in the building's design, but integrates the .City's goal of aesthetic quality by use of materials, detailing, lighting and landscaping. The facility projects itself as a strong identifier for the community. The sign design is monumental in stature. The proposed distance from the freeway is great enough to allow clear and safe viewing without seeming to loom over travel areas. The architectural treatments proposed for the sign mimic those on. the building facades. The logo, its colors and relative scale is festive. Lighting used for the sign both as part of the sign, and the vertical element on the south side visually connect the sign to the project. The manner in which the sign, the parking areas and building would be illuminated anchors the facility as a civic place. The facility would lend a positive image to the I -405 corridor. It would help identify the location to event attendees to enable safe access. .. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PLANNING COMMISSION - UNIQUE SIGN L92 -0050: McLeod Page 20 Planning Commission - Unique Sign: Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve the sign as unique with one condition: 1. Sign messages (readerboard) shall be restricted to advertising events and services to be provided on -site only. PhaW egirPotz-m tttil.49 THREE LINE T I X r1 - r • - 1••6. ttoH 11.47", Fievatio . . . . . . . Plan • I.! gd Devellyment C0. .9.91rea WA 90031 • 034114 J.otelikr 91;rquarth h NeshoRn N.... Build; $01 Seamd A 5..111., WA 98101 1064114460 Connathis AjellEr SW. 233. Bldg. 8 1307 Rol Arca. 3120&A N.E. 5..•1.. WA 91173 Mem, WA 82003 1064114414 804.401.3139 2 A* UM.. An* Nort west Expo Center T u wila, Washington FEB. 8. 1999 REVIEW MARCH 3,1993 BAR Sign at Interstate 405 Scale: 1 /4". P.0" A.10 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 March 25, 1993 There would be underpasses beneath the rail. The parking lot scheme includes several landscape islands that would include several large stature trees. The applicant also proposes walkways which would be delineated by paint stripes to help pedestrians enter the facility. Additional surfacing, striping and bollards will be located near the plaza area. The south elevation would include a plaza and pedestrian access points. The site does include wetlands the City has entertained a conceptual wetlands mitigation program which would be finaled prior to issuance of building permits. The architect has proposed walkway improvements along Strander Blvd. There's also pedestrian striping throughout the parking areas which lead to queuing areas. Quite a bit of the facility would blocked by the adjacent rail lines. The applicant has worked on the design of those portions which would be visible and has included fairly significant architectural features that help to mitigate the massiveness of the structure. One of those mitigating measures involved to treatment of the mechanical units. Staff feels they've done a successful job in looking at elements that incorporate the overall architectural theme. The materials that are being proposed include pre -cast concrete of contrasting colors. The architect has achieved a base, middle and top to the building. Staff has asked that they pay close attention to the way the north entrance is treated so that it captures the audience which would be from I -405. The way they've achieved that is by focusing attention on the canopy. They have proposed extensive glazing (windows). The vertical elements which run along the north facade and a portion of the south facade are neon tubes. The treatments proposed for the administration building would be a little softer. With regard to the sign, and as a point of clarification, the sign is setback 35 feet from the property line, not 85 feet, as stated in the staff report. The sign would be setback 50 feet from the northern edge of the property line. The sign stands 70' high from grade. The architect has included several features that you see in the building. The applicant is also proposing a readerboard sign. Staff has asked the applicant to take pictures with overlays of how the sign would appear at a distance, as well as close up. Staff feels that if the sign were any shorter, it would be less visible to traffic. The sign serves as a monument to create a guide, similar to a gateway for Tukwila. Staff is recommending approval of the sign with one condition that would limit copy to advertisement of events and services provided on site only. Staff is recommending design review approval . of the design review with seven conditions: 1. Before Phase Two construction, the applicant must provide a parking plan to ensure that parking plans reflect adequate parking which meet city standards and that landscaping is in harmony with the parking plan approved for Phase One; 2. Prior to the . issuance of building permits, a detailed drawing which shows the proposed trail must be provided. ATTACHMENT F . Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 March 25, 1993 Mrs. Craft asked if the south entry was a pedestrian entry. Denni said that it would be a pedestrian and traffic entry. Mr. Malina said that he didn't believe there was adequate lighting by the Puget Power transformer walkway. Staff said that the applicant could address that issue. Jerry Knudson said that one of the big problems that the Planning Commission has had, has to do with signage. He stated that he likes the project itself, but does not like the signage. It's a potential traffic problem. People are going to try and read the sign while merging into traffic on a freeway. It appears that we've gone overboard to classify this as a unique sign. The project could probably stand on its own without any signage. The superintendent of the school board had to come before the Planning Commission three times with their sign. Mr. Knudson asked the staff where they came up with unique sign. Jack Pace said that the Unique Sign provision exists in the Sign Code. That provision was adopted in the early 1980's. The issue with the Foster High School sign was that it was less than 35 feet across the street from single - family, low density residential neighborhood. This use or building does not fit a typical use. The way the Code is written, it does not have any detailed parameters with regard to a unique sign. This proposed sign has gone through numerous analysis and re- design. Staff has worked with the applicant to try and find out what makes it unique. If the freeway were not elevated, this sign would have been much smaller. Mr. Knudson said that a lot of the stores in Tukwila can be unique. Just because they are going to advertise events for the facility does not make it unique. The community is not going to accept this. Mr. Malina asked if anything has been proposed for the operation of the readerboard. Jack Pace stated staff felt given the location and not being located in a residential area, it wasn't a critical issue. This is an industrial /commercial area and not visible from single or multi - family neighborhoods. Mr. Malina said that he was surprised that nothing else was proposed to promote this as a gateway to Tukwila. Mr. Haggerton said that it was stretching it to say this would be a gateway to Tukwila. He went on to say that if they were to approve this sign, what would the other businesses in the Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 March 25, 1993 area say? Why couldn't they get a unique sign also? Mr. Knudson asked how this sign would detract from the existing clutter? Jack Pace that there are a number of utility type fixtures which exist in the area that are very mechanical in nature; the sign. is more of an architectural structure. The point was to add a positive focus versus adding a negative one. Stuart McLeod, McLeod Development Co.: He thanked Denni for all of her efforts. George Loschky, Architect: He stated that one of the specialties of his firm is public assembly work. They have done 30 convention center project throughout the United States. The site is unique because it is long and narrow and it is contained by the railroad banks. It does put the building quite a ways back from I -405. In the development of the elevation, they strove to have a scale to the elevation so when it was seen from I -405 it was strong and unique in its own way, but as one parked and approached the building, there were more and more levels of detail to it. The neon elements were to give presence to the building at night. He said that he sympathized with the Planning Commission's position since he sat on the Mercer Island Planning Commission. The thing that makes the sign unique is the special purpose it has to identify where the building is. The base elevation of I -405 is at 52 or 55 feet above ground, so in a way, that first 50 feet of the sign is useless. The sign is as low as it can be and still be visible from the west -bound lanes. Mr. Knudson asked if most of their projects have been public centers. Mr. Loschky said that most of them have been publicly funded projects. This is a unique situation because it is funded privately, but is a public facility. Mr. Knudson asked if they have done a project like this one in the past. Mr. Loschky said that they have done projects like this, but have not done one for a private developer. He went on to say that he was surprised to find that there are approximately 800 hotel rooms surrounding this facility. The proximity to SeaTac Airport is attractive to those using the facility. Chris Easeman: He stated that the sign has a slot where a neon tube fits in to tie it in with the building. Mr. Loschky said that with regard to the visual clutter, one of the reasons why it was felt that the sign would help is because the sign is between the power poles and I -405, so all of Planning Commission Minutes March 25, 1993 Page 6. the cable and power poles are behind the sign. If the sign were pushed back, then the lines and poles would become more visible. Mr. Meryhew asked if the facility was visible from the westbound lane of I -405. Chris Easeman said that the building isn't visible from I -405 until one reaches the railroad tracks. Mr. Loschky said that it sits back as far as Embassy Suites, but is not as tall. Chris Easeman said that if the sign is lowered any more than it is, then it drops below the rail of the freeway and is not seen. Mr. Haggerton asked if the land is clear from I -405 to the building. Mr. Loschky said that it is landscaped, but it is clear. Mr. Haggerton said that he felt the green highway signs are a much better means of directing traffic off of the freeway than the readerboard sign. He asked if freeway signs had been pursued. Mr. Loschky said that the events of the facility would be ever - changing and the purpose of the sign is to let the people know which events are going on. Mr. Haggerton said that is the problem. The sign is near merging traffic and could pose a traffic problem. Mr. Loschky said that the sign has been reviewed by the highway department. There were limitations on signs that were not on long enough and people had to strain to read the sign in a quick time period. Mr. Knudson said the small uniqueness may come from the fact that it advertises different events. He said that the Department of Transportation should have been invited to come to the meeting. Ms. Shefrin stated that they had an opportunity to review the project. The only issue that they had was that the sign be located off of the right -of -way. They are very comfortable with the design and height of the sign. Mr. Malina asked about the lighting around the sidewalk by the Puget Power transformer. Planning Commission Minutes Page 12 March 25, 1993 Vern Meryhew asked where the trail would be located. Ms. Shefrin indicated it would be located along the western edge of the Puget Power Light easement and will tie in with the regional trail system. Mr. Clark asked if there was an ingress /egress to Renton from the site driveway. Ms. Shefrin said no, there is not. Mr. Haggerton asked if the applicant had any problems with the seven conditions proposed by staff. Don Miles stated they did not have a problem with those conditions. Mr. Meryhew asked if the applicant had considered placing the sign on the north facade of the building. Don Miles said that the distance from the rail on I -405 to the front of the building is approximately 1350 feet (approx. 2 blocks). In order to read the sign, the letters would have to be an impossible size and they would be completely out of scale with the front of the building. Also, if one were to try and read the sign from that distance, it would be more disastrous. Mr. Loschky said that they actually started out with the sign on the building. The sign would have had to be the full length of the building in order for it to be legible. The next alternative was to take the sign off the building and bring it closer to the highway. Mr. Meryhew asked how the applicant felt about putting the words "Welcome to Tukwila" below the readerboard. Stuart McLeod said that would be fine and would be a nice addition to the sign. Mr. Clark asked if the glass was clear or tinted. Mr. Loschky said that glass would have a slight tint to the upper glass, however, the glass on the doors would be clear to see the activity inside the building. Mr. Bryant said that the Southcenter sign is approximately 100 feet tall and about 20 feet wide. The Tacoma Dome sign is 36 feet, plus the width of the pylons. The lettering is 30" whereas these letters would be 18 ". A test was done to see where the sign would be visible and where it would not be visible. The height of the freeway grade necessitates the sign being as tall as it is. The message center will have a dimmer during the night so it will not Planning Commission Minutes March 25, 1993 Page 14 Vern Meryhew agreed that the lighting may be adequate as proposed. Mr. Haggerton agreed that condition #7 needed to be clarified to specify "six ". Mr. Clark said that one thing missing from a project of this scale is a piece of artwork that makes the plaza area more inviting. Mr. Knudson said that he would prefer to see a statue or artwork rather than a fountain due to the water shortage. Mr. Haggerton said maybe it could be dressed up by possibly adding colorful, seasonal flowers. Rick Beeler asked if the Commission preferred a vertical or horizontal element. Scott Clark said that he preferred a horizontal element that is compatible with the structure. The Commissioners agreed on a horizontal design element. JACK FLESHER MOVED TO APPROVE THE DESIGN REVIEW FOR MCLEOD DEVELOPMENT, L92 -0050, BASED UPON STAFF'S SEVEN CONDITIONS WITH'1HE FOLLOWING ADDED: 1) CHANGE CONDITION #7 TO REDUCE THE BOLLARDS BY SIX; 2) ADD A CONDITION TO MOVE TWO TREES AS SHOWN WITHIN THE PSP &L CO. EASEMENT; 3) ADD A CONDITION THAT A HORIZONTAL DESIGN ELEMENT BE ADDED TO THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING TO ADD COLOR. MR. HAGGERTON SECONDED THE MOTION AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. With regard to the signage, Jerry Knudson said that the City has tried hard to keep signage within certain boundaries and has denied past signage and now the Commission is asked to approve a sign he feels is too grandiose. He added that the facility is going to get enough notoriety on its own without the sign and the people would know where it is located. He went on to say that he understood the need to advertise the different events which change continually. Jim Haggerton said that he felt a sign that close to the freeway gave an unfair advantage to this applicant versus other applicants. The decision needs to made based upon how the Commission feels about the sign, not because others may complain. He said citizen's and Planning Commission Minutes Page 15 March 25, 1993 businesses may speak up after the fact. Mr. Malina said it would be better if the Sign Code provided specific review criteria, however, it does not. He continued that this is a judgement call and he is personally in favor of the sign, however, he does have a problem with the height. Mr. Knudson said he has nothing against the sign, but questioned whether they're allowing something not allowed for others. Vern Meryhew said that he walked the site and underneath the freeway. He stated that he then drove down the freeway and saw the same views submitted by the applicant. The readerboard is just barely above the barricade on the I -405 freeway. He added that he doesn't have a problem with the height of the sign and this is a sign for the exposition center and an attraction for the entire neighborhood around it. Customers will be brought in to all those businesses by this sign. Mr. Knudson said that people in the neighborhood of the expo center will not be opposed to the sign, however, the rest of the community will be. He added that he's afraid of setting a precedent. Jack Flesher said that the sign is unique because the facility is unique. He went on to say that the sign fits the project. Joyce Craft said that the sign is there for the people coming to the expo center and the marketing is done somewhere else. She felt that it's important to have the sign there. The opportunity to have another sign like this in Tukwila does not exist. There is not a business that would need or want it. Mr. Clark agreed with Joyce and said that he is willing and able to defend his position on the sign. It is an integral part of the expo center. He said that he would like to see as a permanent part of the sign the words, "Gateway to Tukwila ". Mr. Knudson said that one of the biggest things to come out of Vision Tukwila is to eliminate the signs. Mr. Clark said that Vision Tukwila's negative reaction to the signs may be a subconscious negative reaction to the business behind it. Mr. Knudson said that he couldn't agree or disagree with that statement. The area is cluttered and the City is going to get more heat if the sign is approved than they have for a lot of things. He said that he is not going to vote for the sign, simply because of that fact. If we do for one, then we have to do for another. Planning Commission Minutes Page 16 March 25, 1993 Mr. Clark said that if somebody else came to them which fit a unique situation, then he would view it as unique, but he said that he hasn't seen a unique situation. Mr. Haggerton said that regardless of the outcome of the vote, he would recommend that a future discussion take place to revise Section 19.28.010 which covers the unique sign clause of the Sign Code. SCOTT CLARK MOVED TO APPROVE THE SIGN AS SUBMITTED WITH THE CONDITION THAT SIGN MESSAGES (READERBOARD) SHALL BE RESTRICTED TO ADVERTISING EVENTS AND SERVICES TO BE PROVIDED ON -SITE ONLY AND ALSO THAT SOMEWHERE IN A PERMANENT WAY, CONSISTENT WITH 'THE THEME AND THE LETTERING, THAT THE SIGN ON BOTH FACES SAY "GATEWAY TO TUICWILA ". Jack Pace clarified that the words "Gateway to Tukwila" probably wouldn't be seen heading west on I -405 and that heading eastward leads to the City of Renton. MR. MALINA SECONDED THE MOTION. Mr. Knudson said Vision Tukwila spent a number of hours deciding what they want for a Gateway to Tukwila and this may not be what they want. Jack Pace said there is no plan to define what our gateways are. Our policies are that they need to be developed. The Tukwila Tomorrow . group is not intended to be the group to be developing them. They are not developing detailed gateway plans, just policies. Mr. Clark said that it's a positive linkage between the expo center and the City. Mr. Knudson said that he is happy about the project and agreed that it is going to be a tremendous asset to the community, but the Commission is doing some injustice to decide that this will be the gateway to Tukwila. Jack Flesher said that they do need to be sensitive to Tukwila Tomorrow's plans and this needs to be presented to them. There is plenty of time and they need to be involved. Jack Pace said that they would be the wrong group to decide that. Mr. Flesher said that they are a citizen's committee dealing with what they want Tukwila to be. Jack Pace said that Tukwila Tomorrow Committee is not involved in reviewing specific projects. They are looking at policies and they are already committed on projects dealing Planning Commission Minutes Page 17 March 25, 1993 with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Meryhew said that is the Planning Commission's function. Rick Beeler said that as a point of order, this qualifies as a quasi-judicial proceeding and therefore, the Planning Commission is bound to the ordinances and regulations in effect now. The applicant is entitled to a decision this evening based on the current proposal and current regulations. Secondly, the Tukwila Tomorrow Committee is talking about conceptual things. The gateway plan that Jack Pace is talking about is looking at some landscaping and how that can work in the gateway areas. The gateway plan probably won't be completed this year, but rather 1994 or 1995. Rick added that the Commission is bound to a decision using the existing ordinances and policies now in effect. It is a precarious procedure to defer judgement pending receipt of other policies or ordinances coming down the line. THE MOTION WAS REPEATED AND APPROVED BY A VOTE OF 4 -3. MESSRS. KNUDSON, FLESHER, AND HAGGERTON OPPOSED. MESSRS. MALINA, CLARK, MERYHEW AND MRS. CRAFT WERE IN FAVOR. Rick Beeler provided a follow -up regarding the joint meeting between the Council, Planning Commission and Tukwila Tomorrow Committee on the Comp Plan update. The Council asked staff if they would be able to provide them with a Comp Plan update that has been reviewed by the Committee and Commission by the end of 1993. The Tukwila Tomorrow Committee stated they want to proceed on the schedule that was originally laid out which would call for the conclusion of their work by approximately September, October or November. The Council wanted to explore the alternative of the Commission jointly meeting with the Committee for phase III of the update. The Committee was not in favor of that idea because they wanted to complete their own thinking and then forward it on to the Commission. He asked if the Commission .wanted to commit to a three -month schedule to get it to the Council or if they wished to work at their own pace. The Commission agreed that they did not wish to commit to a deadline. A majority of the Commission members indicated they would be able to meet once a week to. review the Comp Plan. Mr. Meryhew adjourned the meeting. 1908 City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard • Tukwila, Washington 98188 John W. Rants, Mayor December 28, 1995 Stuart McLeod McLeod Development 213 Lake Street South Kirkland, WA 98033 Dear Mr. McLeod: This is to respond to your December 8, 1995, letter in which you requested administrative approval for changes to the Northwest Expo Center project. First, you asked for approval of an addition to the north elevation. This minor change is approved administratively. You will need to revise the building permit plans to reflect the change. You also asked for approval for a reduction of parking based on the elimination of the mezzanine. The approved plan included 1,880 spaces to serve 188,000 s.f. of exhibition space, a ratio of one space per one hundred square feet. The proposed modification is approved as the 1 /100 ratio is maintained. You will need to submit revised site /landscape plans to the building division reflecting these changes. DCD will review these plans to ensure other standards are still met. A reminder that you should be talking with Duane Griffin in the Building Division regarding the impact of the removal of the mezzanine on the plan check process. I trust this answers your request. Don't hesitate to call me if you need additional assistance. My number is 431 -3663. Sincerely, ohn sso imerson ate Planner cc: S. Lancaster D. Griffin Phone: (206) 433-1800 • City Hall Fax (206) 433 -1833 ' rrs McLeod Development,Co. 213 Lake Street South, Kirkland, WA 98033 (206) 822-4114 Fax: (206) 827 -9990 City of Tukwila Planning Department 6300 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA. 98188 Attn: Steve Lancaster Dear Steve, December 8, 1995 This letter is to request administration approval for two architectural issues concerning the Northwest Expo Center. 1. The administration offices on the north end of the building have been expanded east (see attached). This improves the pedestrian plaza. 2. Removing the mezzanine leaves 154,000 sq. ft. of exhibit space. Onsite parking total is 1540 stalls. We have adjacent to the site additional land that will increase parking by 519 additional stalls in the future. Feel free to call if you need additional information. ti-ti :: V D DEC 1 1 1995 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT • r M CX�I/ 77Z/ es C/.00-7/ N.,5" 7%/ /rii✓ TO: MEMORANDUM Rick Beeler, DCD Director Ron Cameron, PW City Engineer John Pierog, PW Development Engineer FROM: Gary Schulz, DCD Urban Environmentalist DATE: September 22, 1994 SUBJECT: McLeod NW Exposition Center - Project No. PRE92 -010 Wetland Mitigation Review & Permitting This memo is written to approve, with conditions, the final wetland mitigation plan (Final Mitigation And Monitoring Program (for) Wetland And Buffer Creation And Enhancements - McLeod Expo Center, Tukwila, Washington Watershed Dynamics, 2/1/193 required for the McLeod project. The conceptual wetland mitigation proposal was approved in the 4/22/92 letter to Mr. Stuart McLeod. Specific details related to construction, planting specifications, contingency planning, and monitoring we requested at that time. Most of the requested information has been discussed with the applicant's consultants and provided to the Department of Community Development. The wetland mitigation plan will meet the standards of the Sensitive Areas Ordinance (TMC 18.45) by enlarging the area and increasing the functional values of an existing Type 1 wetland on the site. The loss of four, small Type 3 wetlands will be compensated at a 1.5: 1.0 replacement ratio. Therefore, 0.69 acres of isolated wetland will be filled and replaced by expanding the larger on -site wetland with nearly 1.03 acres of new wetland area. Prior to the initiation of any wetland construction activities, certain revisions and conditions are needed to complete the final wetland mitigation plan (Watershed Dynamics 2/1/93). As stated in my 10/26/93 memo to John Pierog, wetland construction activities will not require performance bonding if completed before final permitting of the project. However, as part of the included Contingency Plan, plant survival and replacement costs are the responsibility of the project proponent since this extends beyond actual wetland construction activities. The .proposed wetland mitigation is approved with the following conditions: 1.) The total costs of plant material and installation will be submitted as part of the approved mitigation plan; and 2) The Performance Bonding section (page 11) of the Plan needs to be revised to indicate that the planting elements of the proposed wetland creation and enhancement will be secured as a "letter of credi ". The current requirement for the "letter of credit" security account will be an ount equal to 150 percent of the estimated monitoring and plant material/inst lation costs. If you have questions regarding the contents of this me o or other aspects of the City's wetland mitigation standards, please contact me at 431- 662. cc: Denni, DCD Associate Planner 1 sProject Engineer - Miles Consulting Thomas Deming, Principal Biologist - Watershe. Dynamics rri Mcleod Development,Co. 213 Lake Street South, Kirkland, WA 98033 (206) 822 -4114 Fax: (206) 827 -9990 RECEIVE-Cs ' SEP' L 3 1994 oivimONiTY DEVELOPMENT The Honorable John W. Rants, Mayor City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Boulevard Suite 100 Tukwila, WA. 98118 September 21, 1994 Subject: Northwest Exhibition Center - Zoning Code Amendment Dear Mayor Rants, The purpose of this letter is to bring to your attention a pending change in the Tukwila Zoning Code related to required parking for public assembly facilities. Further, we wish to make you aware of the effort this change could have on our efforts to construct the proposed Northwest Exhibition Center. As you may be aware, the Planning Commission has considered a modification in the parking requirements for public assembly facilities. * The current parking requirement ranging from "one space per 60 square feet to one space per 100 gross square feet as determined by the Director of Community Development." * Staff recommended widening the range of required parking from "one space per 60 gross square feet to one space per 200 gross square feet as determined by the Director of Community Development and allowing lower parking ratios upon Planning Commission approval." * The Planning Commission deliberated this matter and determined that increasing the range to upper end of the range to 200 square feet of the assembly area should be confined to "publicly owned or operated community centers." The Council has heard this matter and is anticipated to take final action early in October. Studies show that parking demands vary from one facility to the next and thus, there is a need for the range of city parking requirements to reflect that variation. Accordingly, we believe the staff recommendations is well supported by actual experience. The distinction between publicly owned or operated community centers specifically excludes a development like the Northwest Exhibition Center. The specific issue this proposed change ■ The Honorable John W. Rnats, Mayor Page 2 presents to a privately owned or operated facility like the Northwest Exhibition Center relates to our ability to satisfy the requirements of a lender regarding compliance with the city's parking requirements. For this reason, we request to meet with you to discuss this matter further and ensure the City has a complete understanding of our concern regarding this selective definitional change in the parking requirements. Further, we believe it would be most productive if we could have a working session with the Community Affairs and Parks Committee of the Council to discuss this matter to be sure that our views and support data are clearly communicated and all questions relating to this issue are fully addressed. We trust that staff can be present at this working session. I trust the above outlined information provides you with some initial information on which we can proceed with this matter prior to 'final action by the City Council. We believe additional information must be presented to the Council to allow them to make an informed decision. Because this issue has a dramatic impact on our ability to finance our project and in turn move forward with construction, we believe it should be addressed as soon as possible. I will contact you within the next several days to determine if there is a time when we can meet to discuss this further. Sincerely, McLeod Development cc: Rick Beeler Denni Shefrin Don Miles David Markley TO: MEMORANDUM Ron Cameron, City Engineer Bob Giberson, Senior Engineer Denni Shefrin, Associate Planner FROM: Gary Schulz, Urban Environmentalist DATE: December 28, 1993 RE: McLeod Northwest Expo Center - Wetland Mitigation Plan and HCW -L Peer Review. Because the 12/22/93 meeting for the McLeod and Interurban Trail projects was long and diverse, I would like to re -state my comments from that meeting in this memo. I understand that I will be the lead review person for the wetland mitigation phases. Mitigation, planning on the McLeod project, in particular, has allowed significant coordination with the wetland consultant. The McLeod plan is ready for submittal; however, HCW -L's 12/6/93 Plan Review recommended additional detail needed on the plan drawing. To answer the questions and facilitate the completion of this plan, I will assume the following comments are agreed to by the Public Works Department. If you have concerns about this memo, please let me know so the plan can be finalized without unnecessary changes. 1) The S -5 section on Page 5 of the Plan Review identifies the wetland buffer berm and associated work having potential erosion into the constructed wetland. According to Don Miles, this work will be coordinated with the adjacent parking lot construction. Parking lot construction is likely to occur after the wetland is constructed. A "temporary erosion and siltation control plan" for "berm" buffer filling should be conditioned by the Land Altering Permit at the time of parking lot and berm construction. The wetland excavation will likely be kept isolated from the southern, off -site wetland area and northern project area. According to Denni Shefrin, the southern portion of the parking lot landscape may be modified to keep the perimeter berm area within the enhanced wetland buffer plantings. The buffer enhancement planting details should be completed by the wetland consultant and reviewed concurrently with the wetland mitigation plan. This will allow all wetland mitigation review to occur at the same time. McLeod Memorandum December 28, 1993 Page 2 The W -1 and W -2 section on Pages 14 & 15 requested 12 items related to wetland mitigation. Some of the these items do not need to be included in the Final Wetland Mitigation Plan. Specifically, items (1), (2), (7) & (9) are not required mapping details. Because the mitigation will expand a large, wetland system, most of item (4) details are not necessary. cc: Rick Beeler, DCD Director Don Williams, Recreation Director • + %\.\ ;ft �I,r. �� City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor �'�' • 01 Department of Community Development .Rick Beeler. Director ,' 1908 , NOTICE OF DECISION BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW March 29, 1993 Mr. Stuart McLeod 213 Lake Street South Kirkland, WA 98033 Subject: Notice of Decision by the Board of Architectural Review File Number: L92 -0050 This is to confirm that the Board of Architectural Review (BAR) approved the proposed exhibition facility's design as presented on March 25, 1993 with conditions as listed on Attachment A. The BAR also adopted the findings and conclusions contained in the Staff Report dated March 18 ,1993. Any changes to the specific design approved by the BAR will require further BAR approval. Minor, incidental changes may be administratively approved by the Director of Community Development. The decision of the BAR is not final until the appeal period has elapsed, which is ten calendar days from the date of decision (April 5, 1993). Appeals must be filed in writing to the City Clerk by 5:00 p.m. on the final day of the appeal period. Where the final day of an appeal period falls on a weekend or holiday, the appeal period will be extended to 5:00 p.m. on the next work day. If you have any question regarding this project, please feel free to write or call. Sincerely, Denni Shefrin Associate Planner Attachment A enclosed. cc: Don Miles LMN Architects (George Loschky and Chris Easeman) City of Renton Boeing • L92 -0050 File 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington' 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665 City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Rick Beeler, Director ATTACHMENT A CONDITIONS FOR L92-0050 Board of Architectural Review Exhibition Facility DCD Director approval required: 1. Before Phase Two construction, the applicant must provide a parking plan to ensure that parking plans reflect adequate parking which meet city standards and that landscaping is in harmony with the parking plan approved for Phase One. 2. Prior to the issuance of building permits, a detailed drawing which shows the proposed trail must be provided. 3. The south elevation as a secondary entry, will incorporate the metal panel elements and neon lighting above the entry only. 4. Sheet L.1: Five additional trees will be added to parking islands on site and pedestrian cross -walk striping within the PSP &L easement would be shown on revised drawings prior to issuance of building permits. 5. Sheet L.4: Pedestrian canopy design will be detailed on drawings prior to building permit issuance to ensure architectural compatibility with the building design. 6. Sheet L.4: Lighting shall be installed along pedestrian walkways beneath railroad trestles. 7. Prior to issuance of building permits, the number of bollards within the north plaza area shall be reduced by six and shown on the revised site plan. 8. Sheet L -1: Two trees as shown within the PSP &L Co. easement, south of the Strander *Blvd. access shall be relocated and shifted to the south to space the trees more central within these areas. 9. Design elements shall be added to the front of the building which provide color and which are predominately horizontal in form. Planning Commission Unique Sign: 1. Sign messages (readerboard) shall be restricted to advertising events and services to be provided on -site only. 2. The sign shall be designed to incorporate "Gateway to Tukwila" beneath the readerboard on both faces. 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington • 98188 • (206) 431 -3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665 �, ........ ..... . City of Tukwila la John W. Rants, Mayor --1C Department of Community Development Rick Beeler, Director STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION/BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW Prepared March 18, 1993 HEARING DATE: March 25, 1993 STAFF CONTACT: Denni Shefrin 431 -3663 FILE NUMBER: L92 -0050 APPLICANT: McLeod Development Co., Stuart McLeod REQUEST: Construction of a 249,000 square -foot exposition facility (The Northwest Exhibition Center). The following approvals are required: LOCATION: 1. Design Review for a 249,000 gross square -foot exposition facility. 2. Sign Review for a total of 882- square -feet sign and readerboard (appx. 357 s.£) 2. Planning Commission: Unique Sign South of I -405 between the Union Pacific and Burlington Northern Rail Roads and directly west of the Longacres Racetrack. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Commercial and Light Industrial ZONING DISTRICT: C -2 and M -1 SEPA DETERMINATION: Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance (EPIC- 26 -90, Modified) RECOMMENDATIONS: Approval with conditions 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665 Staff Report to the L92 -0050: McLeod Planning Commission/BAR Page 2 ATTACHMENTS: a. Plan Cover Sheet b. Ground Level Floor Plan c. Mezzanine Level Floor Plan d. Building Sections e. Building Elevations, north & east f. Building Elevations, south & west g. North Elevation - detailed h. Partial East Elevation - detailed i. Partial West Elevation - detailed j. Sign at Interstate 405 k. CAD (Computer Aided Design) Site Studies 1. South Parking Area/Landscaping m. Exhibition Area - Phasing/North & South Plazas n. North Parking Area/Landscaping o. North Entry Plaza Detail P. Staged Construction Plan q. Site Survey of Southern Portion r. Site Survey of Northern Portion s. S. 158th St. Street Plan/Road Profile t. Strander Street Plan/Road Profile u. Grading Plan - South v. Grading Plan -. Middle w. Grading Plan - North - Detention Pond x. Photo Montage for Free - standing Sign y. Models presented at hearing: • 1. North Elevations 2. I -405 Sign 3. Treatment for Mechanical Unit z. Colored elevations (presented at hearing) aa. Letter from Boeing Company bb. Letter from Renton cc. Color and materials board (presented at hearing) Staff Report to the L92 -0050: McLeod Planning Commission/BAR Page 3 FINDINGS OF FACT VICINITY /SITE INFORMATION Project Description: The proposal involves construction of a 249,000 gross square -foot regional exhibition facility for consumer and trade shows. The maximum building height would be approximately 52 feet. The types of consumer shows anticipated include home, boat, flower and garden sportsman, antique shows. Trade shows may include gift, restaurant, fish, and product shows for various industries. Parking areas are proposed north• and south of the facility and within the Puget Sound Power and Light Company (PSP &L) easement located west of the site (see attachments 1. & m.). The applicant proposes to construct the project in two phases and requests the BAR approve the entire project and approve parking for phase One only. Vehicle Access: The main building entry would be located on the north side of the building and a secondary entry to the south. Primary vehicle access to the site would be from S. 158th St., which is a private road and is also known as Longacres Way. Street improvements are proposed along S. 158th St. with landscaping, sidewalk, a new underpass (beneath the railroad bridge) and street widening. Strander would also be improved and extended to the site via a 60 -foot public access easement. The applicant also proposes off- premise traffic control signs to direct traffic from critical locations within the City. Signs: A 72 -foot high, free - standing sign is proposed to be located between the northern parking lot and 1 -405. The wedge - shaped, double -faced sign would be approximately 441 - square -feet in area per face which includes a 3 -line matrix reader board (appx. 188 s.f. /side). Letters would be approximately 2 feet high. The sign would be constructed of DryVit with architectural elements similar to those of the exhibition facility including color, banding, metal mesh and neon lighting. A 122 - square foot wall sign is also proposed on the upper northern portion of the west building elevation. Existing Development: The oblong- shaped site sits within an artificial valley created by two railroad embankments on the west and east sides. The property is currently vacant. An electric substation is located on the southern portion of the parcel With a series of large electrical towers and above - ground lines running the length of the PSP &L easement. The site has historically provided ancillary parking for the Longacres Race Track. Surrounding Land Use: The 24 -acre site lies between two rail- roads, Union Pacific Staff Report to the L92 -0050: McLeod Planning Commission/BAR Page 4 (UP) to the west, and Burlington Northern (BN) to the east. The BN rail serves as a municipal border between the cities of Tukwila and Renton with Longacres Race Track directly east of the rail. Several hotels are located within the vicinity of the proposed expo facility which provide nearly 800 rooms: Embassy Suites, The Hampton Inn, The Residence Inn, Nendels, and Homewood Suites. Nelson Place is also lined with a variety of other light industrial warehouse -type buildings. Terrain/Vegetation: The site is flat with a majority of trees located within 100 feet of the east and west property lines. A majority of the site is covered by gravel and pasture grasses. Type 1, type 2 and several type 3 wetlands have been identified on site and adjacent to the site with associated grasses and shrubs. BACKGROUND In early 1992, a portion of the 24 -acre parcel (south of S. 158th) was rezoned from Agricultural to Commercial (C -2), and the Comprehensive Plan amended to reflect this change. The remaining area north of S. 158th is zoned M -1. A Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance (MDNS) was issued for the rezone and • comprehensive plan amendment which considered the environmental impacts of a 250,000 square -foot exhibition facility. Mitigating measures for the facility were incorporated into the SEPA document to address traffic, wetlands and BAR review. The MDNS contained twelve items described below to be incorporated into the design of the exhibition facility: a. Surface water interim and final systems designed and constructed per the King County Surface Water Design Manual (1990) as supplemented by Tukwila, to include detention and biofiltration and approved by the Tukwila Public Works Department; b. Parking aisles that are oriented perpendicular to the building's north and south entrances; c. Expansion of the Type 1 wetland to accommodate 1.5:1 compensatory mitigation for filling Type 3 wetlands and preservation of Type 2 wetland and buffer; d. Landscaping that provides definition of pedestrian walks, shade, and visual relief for facility visitors of massive parking ares and that complements building; landscape islands 7.5 feet wide between every ten parking stalls; e. Incorporation of 12 -foot asphalt trail and 2 -foot shoulders on Puget Power right -of -way; Staff Report to the L92 -0050: McLeod Planning Commission/BAR . Page 5 f. incorporation of Interurban Trail along the north property line; g. Incorporation of significant stands of trees; h. Logical pedestrian aisles that are treated with landscaping and lead to facility entrances; i. S. 158th 'St. and Strander will be treated with landscaping and lead to facility entrances; J• Break up building facades with color, lines and massing to create interest and a balanced architectural design. Materials shall be compared with quality of adjacent new commercial developments; k. Areas for trash, building services, mechanical equipment and event loading will be identified and screened using landscaping where possible or decorative hard materials where not; 1. Create a luminare plan that creates a night -time design for structure. Light standards shall complement the design of structure, and have several scales to provide for pedestrian, building and site lighting. A conceptual wetlands mitigation and enhancement plan has been accepted by the City Department of Community Development. The plan complies with the Sensitive Areas Ordinance. The plan involves filling .69 acres of type 3 wetlands which would be replaced by expanding a large on -site wetland with nearly 1.03 acres of new wetland area. In addition, there would be enhancement within the wetland and within the 50 -foot buffer zone proposed between the parking area to the south and wetland area. Staff believes that all of the items a through 1 above, have been considered and incorporated into the project design as discussed more thoroughly in this report. In recognition of the scale, mass and impact this facility would have on the City of Tukwila, City staff has worked extensively with LMN and the developer for well over a 10 -month period. The City retained Mark Hinshaw (urban designer) to assist staff in working with Stuart McLeod's architect (Loschky Marquardt & Nesholm (LMN)) to resolve all design- related issues. In that time, countless modifications have been made to the design with particular attention paid to the most visible building elevations as viewed from I -405, West Valley Highway and from the Renton side. Detailing at the pedestrian level, landscaping within the parking areas and plaza areas, signage, pedestrian circulation and pedestrian amenities. Renton city staff and the Boeing Company have also reviewed the development proposal and generally Staff Report to the L92 -0050: McLeod Planning Commission/BAR Page 6 concur with the design approach (Attachment aa. and bb.). The staff report contains two sections: The first section being Board of Architectural Review of the site plan and building design. The second section discusses Planning Commission review of the unique sign. Section I. Board of Architectural Review criteria per Section 18.60.050 of the Zoning Code is shown below in bold followed by the applicant's and staff's response. 1. Relationship of Structure to Site. A. The site should be planned to accomplish a desirable transition with the streelscape and to provide for adequate landscaping, and pedestrian movement. B. Parking and service areas should be located, designed, and screened to moderate the visual impact of !urge paved areas. C. The height and scale of each building should be considered in relation to its site. Applicant's Response: "The main site of the Northwest Expo Center (EC) is approximately 24 acres and measures approximately 300' x 3,000'. It is located immediately west of Longacres Park, as well as being bound on both the east and west sides of the site by two railroad lines, the Union Pacific and Burlington Northern Railroad. The north end of the site is bound by Interstate 405. Most visitors will access the EC by West Valley Highway (Interurban Ave) and enter parking areas on either the north or south end of the site. The major entry lobby is located at the north end of the EC with a minor entry on the south. Both lobbies have landscaped plazas in front creating a comfortable transition space between the parking lots and the building lobby. The north plaza will also have a passenger drop off point for shuttle vehicles. The EC sits approximately at mid -site, with parking lots on the north and south side. The building's service zone is on the est side with loading docks on both the north and south ends. The lobbies are on the west side of the building ends. Locating these functions on either side of the Exhibition Halls will separate loading/service operations from visitor movement patterns. This site design strategy minimizes conflicts between the two operations, thereby increasing safety and operational efficiency. The two parking areas on the main site will provide a total of 1,541 parking spaces. Additional parking will be provided in a parking area contiguous to the main site. The contiguous parking locations are in the Puget Power easement west of the site. The total parking to be provided in all parking areas will be 1,880 spaces. The parking areas have been designed to provide the most efficient parking Staff Report to the Planning Commission/BAR L92 -0050: McLeod Page 7 operation to a variety of events. The parking aisles are oriented perpendicular to the building's north and south entrances. This orientation provides the safest and least restrictive pedestrian movement to and from the EC. Parking operations will be adequately staffed in order to provide the least congestion and conflict between automobile and pedestrian movement patterns. The parking areas have been landscaped with large stands and clusters of trees to moderate the paving areas. The landscaping composition also provides intermediate focal points for visitors between parking areas and the exhibition facility. The facility and parking areas are thus integrated in an overall site organization which creates a strong order to both." Traffic and Parking. Parking Supply - The principle refinement in the current parking strategy is that all parking will be accommodated on -site and in the contiguous parking lots located south of I -405. There will be a total of 1,880 parking spaces on -site and directly contiguous to the site. In addition, there are an estimated 800 to 15,00 spaces available on weekends and evenings within a four -block walking radius of the site when peak parking demands occur. "Primary Site Ingress - will be at 158th Street and Strander Boulevard of West Valley Highway. A directional Trail Blazer sign system will guide event attendees to these access roads that lead to the on -site parking. Trained and qualified exhibition center staff will provide traffic control along these roads leading to the site to maintain smooth flow of traffic and ensure the opportunity for emergency vehicle access. "Parking Lot Management - will include traffic directors that guide vehicles off the street into the parking lot where multiple cashiers (to reduce delay and queues) collecting a nominal parking fee. Then parking attendants will load the lots starting closest to the building and park progressively further away from the building. In this way patrons park as close to the entrance as possible and pedestrians walk toward to the building while the auto traffic and parking activity move away from the entrances. This serves to minimize pedestrian /automobile conflicts in the parking lot. "When the primary lots reach their practical capacity, the traffic directors •and cashiers will shift to the accessory parking planned to be provided along the Puget Sound Power and Light right -of -way. The parking lot will be loaded in a pattern similar to the primary parking lots. "As attendees leave and spaces in the middle of the parking lot become available, parking directors will guide parkers to these mid -lot spaces. Handicapped parking will be located near the entrance to the building with barrier -free access to the Staff Report to the Planning Commission/BAR L92 -0050: McLeod Page 8 building entrance. Exiting traffic will be guided using cones and portable barriers to the main access roads (158th and Strander Boulevard) where traffic directors will control the inbound and outbound flows to ensure that inbound queues are minimized. "Passenger Drop -off and Loading - areas will be provided at each end of the building. Parking and traffic directors will guide vehicles to and from these loading area. These loading areas could also be used for shuttle and charter transit buses that may be employed during selected larger events. A curb manager will ensure proper use and traffic control in these areas where pedestrian flows consolidate near the building entrance. "Pedestrian Access -. be provided by sidewalks that will be constructed as part of improvements to 158th and Strander Boulevard. Internal to the site will be marked pedestrian walkways that are located to minimize conflict with automobile traffic flows. "A Public Information Program - will be the cornerstone of the Parking and Access Strategy and will be designed to provide advance information regarding parking and access for most, if not all of the prospective exhibitors, attendees and employees of the facility. "Key to the effectiveness of this program will be the people who manage it. It is proposed that the Operations Manager in coordination with the General Manager and Parking Supervisor, lead a program including several informational pieces which will be developed to address the unique needs of new employees, exhibitors, and attendees." Staff's Response: The applicant is seeking approval for the entire 249,000 gross s.f. exhibition facility and approval for parking for Phase One. Under "Building Design ", the applicant describes the amount of square - footage proposed for each phase. Based upon the City's parking code, parking standards for the first phase would be met. Parking for the second phase would require approval by the Department of Community Development Director to verify parking quantities, design, concurrence by property owners and accessibility to the expo facility. 2. Relationship of Structure and Site to Adjoining Area. A. Harmony in texture, lines, and masses is encouraged. B. Appropriate landscape transition to adjoining properties should be provided. C. Public buildings and structures should be consistent with the established neighborhood character. D. Compatibility of vehicular pedestrian circulation patterns and loading facilities in terms Staff Report to the L92 -0050: McLeod Planning Commission/BAR Page 9 of safety, efficiency and convenience should be encouraged. E. Compatibility of on -site vehicular circulation with street circulation should be encouraged. Applicant's Response: 'Because the railroad tracks along the east and west side of the project are raised on a berm about 15' above the site, only the upper portions of the building will be visible from off -site areas. The facility is designed to be compatible with both current and future district character, in both land use and building mass. "The massing composition for the building is created by an interplay of large elements that express the overall function and spaces in the building with smaller elements and detailing related to the pedestrian scale. The heights of the building are compatible with those of adjacent structures such as the Embassy Suites Hotel and Longacres Park. The mass of the EC structure is compatible with that of Southcenter Mall and other nearby commercial developments. "Site vehicular circulation, both visitor and service, is designed to be compatible with existing street circulation. There are two primary access routes, from S. 158th Ave. and Strander Blvd. Both of these access drives will have improved roadways and landscaping to highlight their roles. "The building is serviced with 8 truck docks and a separate food service dock and trash dumpster location. The building also has doors to accommodate trucks entering directly onto the floor of the facility to unload exhibit equipment. This feature will alleviate truck congestion at the service docks. All service and loading areas are screened and positioned to not be seen by visitors to the EC, or from adjacent properties and streets." Staff's response: Pedestrian connections will be enhanced from the PSP &L easement to the project site with surface striping to match that proposed within the parking areas. Throughout the planning process, staff has coordinated with both .the Boeing Company and the City of Renton to ensure design concerns are adequately addressed. Boeing has provided a letter (Attachment AA) which states that their concerns have been addressed. Comments contained in Renton's letter (Attachment BB) address the need to accommodate a future rail station, landscaping, light and potential glare, HVAC screening, maintenance of exterior building surfaces and the sign. 1. Future rail station. The MDNS under the transportation section, required the applicant to provide access between the expo facility and a future transit stop. Staff Report to the Planning Commission/BAR L92 -0050: McLeod Page 10 2. Light and Glare. The City, by ordinance, currently prohibits lighting beyond property boundaries. 3. HVAC screening. Lighting is not part of the screening concept. 4. Exterior building surfaces. The wall surfaces would be treated to make them virtually non - porous so that pollutants would not effect the color. The number and design of the downspouts would negate the impact of weathering to the wall panels. 5. Sign. Renton suggests the building elevation be utilized to contain the sign as opposed to the free - standing sign. The purpose of the sign is to advertise events to the public. Exposure is limited to I -405 because the site is generally blocked by the railroads on two sides. If the sign were to be placed on the building facade, the sign would have to be significantly increased in size to ensure event, advertising would be safely visible to I -405 traffic. 3. Landscape and Site Treatment A. Where existing topographic patterns contribute to beauty and utility of a development, they should be recognized and preserved and enhanced. B. Grades of walks, parking spaces, Terraces, and other paved areas should b pronwte safety and provide an inviting and stable appearance. C. Landscape treatment should enluence architectural features, strengthen vistas and important axis, and provide slutde. D. In locations where plants will be susceptible to injury by pedestrian or motor traffic, mitigating steps should be taken. E. Where building sues limit planting, the placement of trees or shrubs in paved areas is encouraged. F. Screening of service yards, and other places which tend to be unsightly, should be accomplished by use of walls, fencing, planting or combinations of these. Screening should be effective in winter and summer. G. In areas where general planting will not prosper, other materiaLs such as fences, walls, and pavings of wood, brick, stone, or grovel may be used. H. Exterior lighting, when used, slwuld enhance the building design and the adjoining landscape. Lighting standards and fixtures should be of a design and size compatible with the building and adjacent area. Lighting should be shielded, and restrained in design. Excessive brightness and brilliant colors should be avoided. Applicant's Response: "The Exhibition Facility site is unique in that it is located between two large linear railroad berms, Burlington Northern to the east and Union Pacific to the west. The berms associated with these railbeds are the dominant landscape elements and help to drive the overall form of the EC and its associated parking areas. Functionally they contain the site within very prominent boundaries and provide a visual screen that helps to reduce the impact of the parking when viewed from outside the site. Staff Report to the L92 -0050: McLeod Planning Commission/BAR Page 11 Within the context of the site, the linear railbeds dictate that the parking areas and EC be elongated in similar fashion. This provides a strong central axis and pedestrian corridor leading from the ends of the site to the EC in the center. Reinforcing the pedestrian corridor are landscape islands with concentrations of plantings These help to reinforce the scale of the site, as well as provide a visual and shade break between parking areas. Visual corridors from the parking areas to the facility follow the pedestrian spine and are framed by the sequential plantings. Larger masses and simplified plant palette visually reinforce the scale of the site and produce a stronger design. Rows of poplars along the eastern extent of the property reinforce the rhythm created by the columns and railbeds and tie the parking areas to the EC. "The plant material used on the site was chosen for its hardiness and tolerance to heat and drought. Larger concentrations help to alleviate the stress that is put upon plants when they are sited individually or in smaller groupings. In areas where high water table conditions has been found to exist on the site, trees were chosen that would thrive in the moist soils. "All wetlands on the combined parcels of land have been identified and classed as to type. These areas were then measured for square footage. A suitable area was identified adjacent to Designated Wetland 12 as an area for relocation of a comparable area by land use code, the wetlands creation plan and monitoring program are part of this submittal." Staff's Response: While the SEPA Determination suggested plantings every 10 parking spaces, the landscape concept involves larger landscape areas containing several trees. Because of the overall scale of the parking areas, larger landscape islands are far more effective in visually breaking up paved surfaces as opposed to single trees placed far apart. The large islands also help direct traffic to parking spaces and offer better protection from vehicle damage. Landscaping is also proposed along property edges at entries into the site. The total amount of Landscape materials proposed significantly exceed the original concept reviewed during the SEPA process. 4. Building Design A. Architectural style is not restricted, evaluation of a project should be based on quality of its design and relationship to surroundings. B. Buildings should be to appropriate scale and be in harmony with permanent neighboring developments. C. Building components - such as windows, doors, eaves, and parapets - should have good proportions and relationship to one another. Building components and ancillary parts shall be consistent with anticipated life of the structure. D. Colors should be harmonious, with bright or brilliant colors used only for accent. Staff Report to the Planning Commission/BAR L92 -0050: McLeod Page 12 E. Mecluanical equipment or other utility hardware on roof, ground or buildings should be screened from view. F. Exterior lighting should be part of the architectural concept. Fixtures, standards and all exposed accessories should be harmonious with building design. G. Monotony of design in single or multiple buildings projects should be avoided. Variety of detail, form, and siting siwuld be used to provide visual interest. Applicant's Response: "The Northwest Expo Center (EC) will ultimately provide 207,000 s.f. of exhibition space that likely will be built in two phases and which will be primarily used for consumer and trade shows. Phase Two will expand the exhibition space of between 150,000 and 188,000 s.f. to its final 207,000 s.f.. The EC will have two floors and a two -story main space to accommodate a variety of show users. In the final built -out configuration the main floor will be 163,000 s.f. and the upper floor will be 44,000 s.f. of exhibition space. The Phase One totals will be between 109,000 and 144,000 s.f. of main floor and 44,000 s.f. of upper floor exhibition space. Stairs and elevators located at optimum points will be used to circulate visitors between the two floors. The facility will utilize partitions to subdivide the exhibit space into various sizes and meeting rooms. The EC is designed to accommodate multiple events simultaneously and has two lobbies located at opposite ends of the building. Because no parking or public areas are located on the long side of the building, these lobbies at the ends comprise the primary public facades of the facility. The walls of the exhibit hall are articulated with patterned concrete panels of a large scale which form a background for the more articulated lobbies and entry areas. The concrete panels are smooth at the lower portion to provide a more inviting finish at the pedestrian level and to create a base to help breakdown the overall size of the wall. The upper portions of the concrete panels are articulated with reveal joints and textures creating a large scale pattern on portions of the building visible from a distance. "The north and south walls incorporate banded CMU, contrasting in color and texture, to engage the view of the building from a distance. The lobbies are detailed with metal and glass, accent colors, lighting, graphics and landscaping oriented to the pedestrian activities on the site. "Individual mechanical units are roof mounted and located along the east and west sides of the building. They are viewed primarily from a distance as the roof slope shields them from view as one approaches the facility. The mechanical units have been screened with horizontal open mesh screen panels, recalling the screen panel at the entry facade, with solid, painted metal panels at one end, aligning with the CMU piers along both the east and west elevations. The mechanical units themselves will be painted to match the color of the roof. All services in and out of the unit will be located behind the unit, shielded from view. Staff Report to the L92 -0050: McLeod Planning Commission/BAR Page 13 The overall design concept expresses the different building elements in a composition that serves to provide variety in form and detail at two scale levels: bold patterns and large scaled elements designed for the "long view," i.e., CMU banding and neon light fixtures which present the entire north facade to the I -405 and parking lot views; and textures, patterns and colors designed with an elegance in color and proportion perceptible to the pedestrian upon approach to the entry plaza and lobby." Staff's Response: In order for the north plaza to function better as a public space, some of the bollards should be removed. The south elevation as depicted in Attachment F. does not show the metal panels or neon lighting, However the applicant has agreed to add these elements directly over the south entry. 5. Miscellaneous Structures and Street Furniture A. Miscellaneous structures and street furniture should be designed to be part of the architectural concept of design and landscape. Materials should be compatible with buildings, scale should be appropriate, colors should be in harmony with buildings and surroundings, and proportions should be to scale. B. Lighting in connection with miscellaneous structures and street furniture slould meet the guidelines applicable to site, landscape and buildings. Applicant's Response: "Landscape islands will serve to articulate the overall project organization. They will provide an identifiable point from which visitors can locate their cars in the parking area. Luminaries will be located in the parking lots. Small scale site lighting, pedestrian bollards, paving and landscaping will be provided to reinforce the overall design concept." Staff's Response: The site plan shows a pedestrian canopy within the plaza area, however the design of the canopy has not been completed. • CONCLUSION 1. Relationship of Structure to Site: Due to the site's unusual tear -drop configuration, the building is sited to capture its greatest audience .- that from I -405 traffic. The facility location maximizes areas for parking which allows for efficient vehicle access. The siting considers how the facility would operate at its highest level of efficiency. It considers concurrent events from Staff Report to the Planning Commission/BAR L92 -0050: McLeod Page 14 an attendee standpoint, and from a functional standpoint during set -up and take- down, which would avoid potential conflict between vehicles and pedestrians. Parking on the PSP &L easement provides the necessary parking and is readily accessible to the facility. Pedestrian areas would be clearly delineated by both sidewalks along streets and by stripped areas within the parking lots. The parking layout is orderly and would accommodate vehicles of varied sizes including buses. Landscape islands provide shade and visually break up the large paved areas. Based on the proposed parking program, the applicant has adequately addressed the SEPA mitigation which requires that a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program be provided. Also included in the strategy are several off - premise guide signs which would safely guide traffic to the facility. A final guide sign plan would be approved by the City Engineer. 2. Relationship of Structure and Site to Adjoining Area: Adjoining areas are for the most part, separated by two railroads. Access to the site is limited to S. 158th and Strander. Therefore, how these connections are treated becomes critical from a safety and aesthetic perspective. The Public Works staff has worked closely with the applicant to ensure public improvements make for a safe transition into and out of the site. Pedestrian traffic from the nearby hotels and parking areas would be guided by walkways. The future trail would also provide a regional connection to the facility for bicyclists and walkers. Landscaping is proposed at the rail crossing to announce the entrance to the Northwest Expo Center. 3. Landscape and Site Treatment: Concentrations of landscaping combined with the overall scale of the project succeed in reducing the mass of the parking areas. The plantings help define pedestrian areas and provide visual relief to the facility. The placement of the landscape areas on a grid configuration pattern tie with architectural elements of the building. The 30-35 - foot light standards would incorporate the metal panel elements and symbols at approximately 12 feet from the paved surface. The symbols would assist attendees locate their vehicles as well as introduce the festiveness of the expo facility into the parking areas. The City of Renton requested that additional trees be added along the east elevation where possible to soften the building facade for future commuters who may be using the rail system. Landscaping added to the east side of the building keeps fire access unobstructed while taking advantage of additional landscape opportunities. Trees should be deciduous in order to best soften the visual impact along the east side. Staff Report to the L92 -0050: McLeod Planning Commission/BAR Page 15 The overall design is sensitive to the need to screen service areas with a strong emphasis at the building's entrances. The plaza areas also provide attractive public spaces while controlling pedestrian traffic entering the facility by use of vertical fixtures and surface treatments. 4. Building Design: Staff had requested the architect be particularly attentive to how the project would appear from critical vantage points: at the pedestrian level, from 1-405, from West Valley Highway, from taller buildings (view of HVAC units) within the vicinity and from railroad grades. The manner in which materials, textures, colors, and detailing would be composed must be successful in order to ensure a high level of visual interest from these view points. The fact that the site sits within a valley created by two railroads adds to the site's visual interest. The facility succeeds aesthetically with the necessary attention given to the north elevation as the primary focal point, and to the south entry as a secondary focal point. The vertical neon lighting along the north facade focuses attention to the entry. The ornamentation, while unique to Tukwila, is not extravagant, but appropriate for an exhibition facility. The canopy offers protection from the weather. The plaza offers a public place for people to gather and interact outdoors as well as allow bicyclists to park and either participate in the events or rest. Lighting would create a festive atmosphere as it pours out from the large windows onto the plaza at night. The bollards incorporate light fixtures which would be placed within the plaza areas to help create order to pedestrians entering the facility. Plaza seating would also be provided. Where is was not possible to modulate the building, banded wall treatments, textures and contrasting colors significantly help reduce the visual mass of the building. The masonry materials would withstand time, would not be subject to deterioration and would be easy to maintain. The colors selected are light and dark grey tones, white and metallic. The exterior material proposed for the administrative offices is a polished precast concrete which complements the textured and sandblasted concrete uses on the remaining facades. Color would be introduced by the vertical pink neon elements, slightly green- tinted glass, interior lighting, red bollards in the plaza areas, and landscape materials. The channel which contains the neon tube would reflect color during the day as well. The south elevation serves as a secondary entry. In addition to the canopy, the entry should incorporate the metal panels and neon lighting (not shown). The south facade would be moved and re- attached for each phase. Staff Report to the L92 -0050: McLeod Planning Commission/BAR Page 16 While the facility appears large in plan view, the railroad berms and buildings on adjacent lots significantly restrict the building's visibility from the east and from S. 158th and Strander. The north elevation incorporates the most dominate of architectural elements. Because it was recognized the HVAC units couldn't be hidden, the units would be painted to match the silver metal roof. Metal mesh would surround the unit and be painted a contrast black to tie with the vertical elements on the side elevation. These units would not be lit. The south elevation for Phase One would appear as it does in the final phase with the exception. of surface elevations for loading docks. The wall panels can be removed and replaced for phasing. 5. Miscellaneous Structures and Street Furniture The incorporation of the metal panels with symbols on each of the parking lot light standards create a continuation of architectural elements throughout the site in addition to assisting attendees locate their vehicles. Some of the bollards would be omitted to maximize the public spaces in the plaza area. The applicant proposes a pedestrian canopy, however the design hasn't been completed. The final design would be reviewed by the DCD Director prior to building permits. RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends the BAR approve the exposition facility as proposed and shown in the drawings attached with the following conditions: DCD Director approval required: 1. Before Phase Two construction, the applicant must provide a parking plan to ensure that parking plans reflect adequate parking which meet city standards and that landscaping is in harmony with the parking plan approved for Phase One; 2. Prior to the issuance of building permits, a detailed drawing which shows the proposed trail must be provided. 3. The south elevation as a secondary entry, will incorporate the metal panel elements and neon lighting above the entry only. 4. Sheet L.1: Five additional trees will be added to parking islands on site and pedestrian cross -walk striping within the PSP &L easement would be shown on revised drawings prior to issuance of building permits; 5. Sheet L.4: Pedestrian canopy design will be detailed on drawings prior to building Staff Report to the L92 -0050: McLeod Planning Commission/BAR Page 17 permit issuance to ensure architectural compatibility with the building design; 6. Sheet L.4: Lighting shall be installed along pedestrian walkway beneath railroad trestles; 7. Prior to issuance of building permits, the site plan shall be revised to reflect a reduction of the number of bollards proposed in the plaza areas. PLANNING COMMISSION - UNIQUE SIGN The City Sign Code defines Unique Signs as follows: 19.28.010 (E): Unique Signs (must be) specifically approved by the Planning Commission if in their judgement the Ef(lect of the proposed sign would not contribute to a cluttered, confusing or unsafe condition. Unique Sign means a building or other structure of unique design and exterior decor, where the entire structure may be considered an advertising device, including but not limited to shapes imitating huts, boots, tires, statues, parts of anatomy or manufactured items such as airplanes, cars, boats, carriages, or symbols- which may or may not contain lettering. Applicant's Response: The photographic representations depicting the approximate size and location of our proposed main identity sign for "Northwest Expo Center ". The intent is to give a visual idea as to how the display will interact with the immediate environment, specifically, the I -405 freeway, power poles and lines, trees and buildings. The exact location and height will be confirmed by an on -site flag test, which will involve hoisting a full sized representation into place. The current location, size and height are the result of a preliminary flag test that we performed last June. At that test we lifted a 4' x 8' sheet of plywood as a target and drove I -405 in both directions until reaching a suitable height. That test indicated the curvature and rise in the west bound lanes as being the most difficult obstacles to overcome from both an advertising and a safety standpoint. The height that we are currently settled on appears to be the minimum height at which the sign will be effective, particularly from west bound traffic. We are showing the bottom of the sign approximately 12' above the existing railing. This seems to be a height that will allow motorists adequate viewing time and at a viewing angle that will be comfortable. I have had a discussion with Nancy Guinn and Dave Deede at the Washington State Department of Transportation. This sign as proposed will meet all of their requirements." Staff Report to the Planning Commission/BAR Staff's Response: L92 -0050: McLeod Page 18 The sign would be setback 85 feet from the north property line, and 50 feet from the north parking area. The proposed sign complies with the Department of Transportation criteria for signs adjacent to freeways. Because the Sign Code does not provide specific review criteria for unique signs except for the description above, it is important that the following discussion demonstrate why the proposed sign is unique and why the proposed height and size is justified. What characteristics make the proposed sign unique? a. Neither an exposition facility nor sign of this design are commonly found in many cities the size of Tukwila. The sign helps to emphasize this location as a gateway into Tukwila; b. The sign not only promotes facility events, but is a free - standing structure which introduces the public to the unique architectural elements which are integrated in both the sign and building; c. The design of the sign lends visual harmony to the parking area and to the exhibition facility through the use of consistent architectural elements such as banding and contrasting colors, neon lighting and the metal panels. d. The facility's logo is festive and the layering of design elements such as the metal mesh, the square background with gradations of blue, the way the lettering and the yellow banner extends beyond the square background which adds dimension; e. Due to several overhead utility lines, this area appears very cluttered. The sign would enhance the appearance by erecting a structure which announces the Northwest Expo Center located at Tukwila's gateway. f. The Sign Code stipulates that unique signs must not contribute to a cluttered, confusing or unsafe condition: This area is already cluttered by several overhead utility lines. The sign would detract from the existing clutter. The sign design and concept would draw the eye away from the clutter, reduce the confusion by calling attention away from nearby utility and vertical elements. Further, the sign would safely communicate current and upcoming events. Staff Report to the L92 -0050: McLeod Planning Commission/BAR Page 19 What is the justification for the sign size and height? a. The total height would be 72 feet, however, the amount of sign visible from the I -405 bridge deck excludes a significant portion of the sign structure. It is essential that the portion which is visible can be read clearly from the east and west bound approaches where vehicles both ascend and descend past the facility; b. The photo montages (Attachment x.) shows I -405 heading west. This picture illustrates the amount of visible sign area; c. The readerboard is one of the best ways to advertise facility events. It is important that the readerboard be easily read by both east and westbound traffic and that the lettering isn't so small so as to cause traffic to slow down. You will notice that portions of the readerboard may be blocked by on- coming traffic. The photo analysis demonstrates that visibility would be lost if the sign height would be reduced; d. The frequency at which messages would change would be approximately every 4 seconds. This is about the same frequency as the Tacoma Dome sign. CONCLUSION FOR PLANNING COMMISSION - UNIQUE SIGN The proposed Northwest Expo Center exemplifies a unique use of an equally unique parcel of land which not only favors a certain strength in the building's design, but integrates the City's goal of aesthetic quality by use of materials, detailing, lighting and landscaping. The facility projects itself as a strong identifier for the community. The sign design is monumental in stature. The proposed distance from the freeway is great enough to allow clear and safe viewing without seeming to loom over travel areas. The architectural treatments proposed for the sign mimic those on the building facades. The logo, its colors and relative scale is festive. Lighting used for the sign both as part of the sign, and the vertical element on the south side visually connect the sign to the project. The manner in which the sign, the parking areas and building would be illuminated anchors the facility as a civic place. The facility would lend a positive image to the 1 -405 corridor. It would help identify the location to event attendees to enable safe access. Staff Report to the Planning Commission/BAR . RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PLANNING COMMISSION - UNIQUE SIGN Planning Commission - Unique Sign: L92 -0050: McLeod Page 20 Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve the sign as unique with one condition: 1. Sign messages (readerboard) shall be restricted to advertising events and services to be provided on -site only. NORTHWEST EXPO CANTER Tukwila, Washington Board of Architectural Review March 5, 1993 McLeod Development, Co. 213 Lake Street South Kirkland, WA. 98033 206 - 822 -4114 Owner Vicinity Map YStW� f "Ilrr� SIT1. Loschky Marquardt & Nesholm 501 Norton Building 801 Second Avenue Seattle, WA.98104 206- 682 -3460 Architect Drawing Index Al 6.06A1 le.et Moo rut AS M,unw, 1..N No PM. AS O.kne Anal A/ I.ANAIIM.W., AS /.Unl SYrnnn AI O,1d.4 (Yawn • 4124 A) O.YWIMrnn.•An Al 063144 Drown • West 11.0. A10 5.3141.405 A11 CAD Ste 510.61 AM.o.M A41A1M4 41 544.5449 Nn U h4AMe. Alw U Mon. rang Ana LI In.. rang A4. l5 14.544 CenW.twn Mu, GN I•i.•n.. SI 51. r4.. 5S S.. run 53 5. 151 511.w A 254.3 51 51111 Access Awl SS O419 run 51 04En6 r4.. 55 0459 1161 Miles Consulting Atelier ps Suite 211 - Bldg. 2 300.120th Avenue N.E. Bellevue. WA. 98005 206. 451.2138 2307 First Avenue Seattle. WA. 98121 206.441.1494 Engineer Landscape Architect n • rweimt 212! ] 561' 46 9t 1 tz ae'7ti lowtr i K rcwu r 1 / - 1 • •Ct I� 12.1 rINF. P0011 ON .5urtefr SVrrOrfr 1980 it IA Imo CaRouND t,E'EL PPN ��2 "•I' -O' 1-4/4 2 VIOL 21.AV. G�we 26kI ' w6 avow 2LW ne 2'4 Loo- P gA SUMMa- 5 N6 6F141 .i LAV DWG q tAY• — M Po C> . i MIN. Fate !dam L rrer Imo PFIt•eEo46: •tiremoprnolor,o tYW1u -Weal - MCU4N)'JCrepIN1106¢6,WITIf•1H6 PIF T-rwee OP TILE rweciCakikJG1161 U��1O.000pll- r168,COOOForNoTyaw iHe P 06 Oi 1116 � 61 MN[D Apniefiu6MtrPl- RY- 6u1wp161 wwitAir• P}4d6E OW:: r41A1-w1�1D-ouT: Calkos.vp.4• Iloow• K4oa4X Her EAtileAr A�FEA: .: 'u.ws, 143,4w+r r_'�,`t. nAao�r l dfMr4 94,ko ar w]17•lpM- 04004436, Mccose Her EtAii6eAk64 16C t4a•,r ruw- sl,om.r WT ®41151 'AF6ra: 44,uecr ._ ..-._ iolAl-6Rcolvfs : 161 O0o.2L11,0000r {•arAt•Ov eXWAt,;A:103,08o-Ibb,ao6F - ro- rA.G/ a.t .24,1,0096P Toth-- NetwietrAgA: 1.07,0005P _ Derdo mcnl. C°. Mull), M.r• lard' & NahPtm Mile• Con.ullin. a >L Northwest Expo Center Tukwila, W U s }I i n t o n F}31. 71. 1993 LOUD �t:VC Floor Plan A.1 RE1'IEW $u,d SwY WA 9.0!3 11/ I S01 F1.no. lIu1IJM9 101 S•mndA Seattle, WA 97101 !a4- w74140 .06411 S.0. 711 • ONEf ]0P1lahA N.E. Iel1.r+., WA 95003 206.431.0131 w— 2307 Fln1 Ae...• Se•1i1•, FA 97171 701441.1499 WY., Mr- MAHGF511M9 {l, 8 Or:Vr::LOPIti1F21‘11- 1 273 1 4e N v.i1 T — . {6 Nn >5 1Js.�'... ��� 7-11-- ftt _ �.- --tt I�lr2 • 3sii„5* '4 i or. 7� i5'I79in..14 co A�/ —� JJ —NL - l� o Nita RM"��� Gvrloo =lap• ■-• (.2.1415. 40. IC Mt 1%45-ZZAN INE P t.M \\ *NG SPAN MALI• �-- BV• OH. \ -- -Pvr Eft.eis• r Lea- A1- ..°tLMM+'�' 42020 wem6 c7,o0o4r. NEI" Nag. k ierla4,Y t 41,4Ca78• al • Trod Development Cu • 113•lak.6ma 11566% CI46md, WA 99033 216113 -4114 ...r LnirJ4v Marquardt & Ne.holm plies Contulaug defier p1 2307 VIM All taut 5.666, WA 91131 306-411.1494 4. ,. 4..-. N o r t h w e s t E x p o C e n t e r T u k w i l a , W a s h i n g t o n MR e.19 93 Mezzanine Level Floor Plan A,2 MF3IF9 501 Na„oe UaIW41 101 Seaad Aseaue 566111, WA 91101 206611.5560 4... 5611. 211 • UM& 3 300.1204 Avenue N.E. IlelMrw, WA 95005 206451.301 ..••• 51AI11JI 5.1993 8811 tiIR 8 it; T1 E><►ANSbN re exit sr.onori pc I/* - i- I HK H/d!D 64 .4&.'/ HW 1U611'Y444 ps911.._ • I 111 _`1000' {s- . ___.__. eii��_•I,7�. _I t;�YY' ifred ■5■191415 wort new A•)% Yt tut Mta19s Aet N,L'+6 714Arr J 14.0. 94,19wuni.,E, ' 115 Lk. S1.w1 S..1A KI.61..d,aA 95033 106 - 1114114 ...... • Local' M.rywrdt & Nnh11m 501 N.4.■ y91di.4 DOIS....dA 9..112.. WA 95104 1064/13460 ,..,.. hike C091011415 A.4 16r y, 130751411A 5.111e, WA 95111 106441.1494 Northwest Expo Center Tukwila, Washington • 4}35 N 1993 NF'`1 .S4 Building Sections Building Sections A 3 591. 111• B14. 2 50611011. A N.H. 11411.141e, WA 91005 104451.1135 1.... MANCII5,1993 NAP min •111,41r 1 1111111311. 111C404CD 8•4400111 1941111136,49 7.'441.4 - WRITE , . k ( . , • : w t, eiszassomemse at .L. L 74; . i = , WI I , II 1 - I - V -.. INV111 woo sonm•samma n eamma,ecissemmtempa• • =on la Emi , 1 1 9 1 I 1 - . z•zisma ISM litlinial__ . . .., - . . Min Taiiiimaiumm..u• Pl la ' M a — ARM MU MINI mum man - mom __ IIMM/1 MINA -MIEN :AMMO Rg : : : ipi9.11., M 1111rx 1111/1 A. . .4 ml tan„. . ions : 1 IMI 111:12r11211r1 mi.. ....., ... at...It011*M 5,04s1 AsALr19 ukerrscru,e 17fiColl•OGKI 344 444 ;NT r•e.4' p4.1 cats.t. OW la Poc44 teo,C, grtaftsPow.e North Elevation 0th M10 CV244•VP SGZ441'04 -0 --1 rlftri *4464 mmr- 46:74171/11,t4C 60.1W, CeILI 444oPY ■ -0401.6.61117 lQj u) au Olaaley tstrAter, FfEcArf 9W10 LA-two, er44,041 ccoo. pn-kvb rofosicalk rT11104959 WHO Mark, et3:11, RX4440 lkof Fast Elevation ,a0040 WOW> /art17114 riteu•vr wrrE .44708 .44708 recoor"ra f11:46.4.$3' "diff'darl)117,4fe Lfi 44. '.603 .91 AT sat- cetALeo PO44141241f 0111 nocvnag \-.Atvna- r•eita, 0,00 F tv4 rt.& V, ' Pl..1414 FtV41127 11,1c.tr cm.■ 00670 4646. Lod Do,dpomn. Cp. 1421thiailinallIEL Mc. Con4911ing &amp 1NTortftwest 9811.8. 1993 501 Norton Building 11E1 1EW LaL4 Street Saab Sults 211 • 1114. I 2307 Flr41 A Expo Center lead. WA 90013 101 Scromd Avenue 30412039 A N.E. 54831., WA 91111 MAIICH 5,3993 Building Elevations 4224114 5.431e, WA 91104 11.114,u, WA 92007 306-441-1194 19419 206-913.3906 2046134960 106451-2130 Tukwila, Washington SIA1,1/16..1.4). IMAM ...041 La, Ats,..1 rn pliZe CC:17vttk..11.1.;.\! A.6 •4804 ruce• rw8".”48, 1 1 61.11J LAMA, C rosts6, evb4o MIMI MI MN ISM olo 11111Di rsalaual— . sinsimps Irjaam Imo= w "nianaRailaill==9111.1mliN I =211111.CM: alma South Elevation 10- FV.011,0 AIMS, ree...rr mE.P,880. WAIV 440,144., 1.980110 14.0.14Cti.01.4 6orrovm.46.wr (*Mr- 708.4�1034. 19437 441V,4.1 • ■.:4 04 4" ; #50,41111P4H -dt0P:VC. • , 170717 ..N011:14 AO 42 ISMW POW.61.1.M.W,47hff • P• MP, 6(1— I or) Ilex104,0 601Perrs fl.fiAVr Gore. ftwa,,C. er.4.440. West Elevation 490 ,61■11/44841:1204443,7 81444442444 rj Puchkv Siam's& & No Itillin MI6 Coma 14g A11.1k2 83 2307 lint A 5.014, WA 08111 2064414408 L.610, AMA. 1Northwest Expo Center Tukwila, Washington Mk 8 1,8)3 RE \ WA Building Elevations &Jar: 1/16.• NT A.5 ke 51n. 5.16 ad. WA 92033 14110 501 Nen. MAL, 301 Send Ayes. 54.01., WA 91101 206682.1460 4.11.0 Salle 211 • Mk. 2 300.17016 A N.E. 11.11...,., WA 91003 206-411.21U oar.. NiA11(.11 9,1993 11811 rj :11 EC E IV EC' • VIAR 8 'at • c 0 M Li N I re I)EVLMM 7:1-: NT Nal'th EI(■atiun .b1n'•I 1r • • III r4Lfj, k• M••y4uaLSdnLd14 le;,,;,,_;., 1L4afiW:Wu ,, ,, Me .I. Anw M4 Mans.4M+141 114•411 WS AI.Yu.Y, ., fw.4M 14111 1144411641 Northwest Expo Center Tukwila, Washington _A.4 Detailed Elevations A.6 Um, 441444 WlEE PAR 8 :S93 C.0 MPil rPe 1 71111111 .. ,.. 711;.,4• ni %,�T ;' _ ..,f•. Partial Fast Elevation S..1.-.11..r lr .1 [rb 1�4 ty, l.[ . AbNy[lY W Ilr YI . WA 4 114 I...Y.1 MIM �Iw ALk e.rdua. ,...n �. M[Il� d 4L.r,r1 Nod *II Auba4+ n.,.. .V.1 �.1 MITI 1MN111N N o r t h w e s t Expo C e n t e r Tukwila, WnRhington IHI [ IYq Detailed Elevations A.7 R141t1 ��'J��'M1 �'1��':T�; O \R MAR I \I 8 '6193 C M 1.111 ITV Es,[0 P FL:1\1T la. • 1.. 0. !!. : Eg „.7.77.4114_1 j:17 1111 Yr, , r. 1 • p7.7.7\77, ...L•ri • ,11'11,1 1'1,1 11:111, Partial West Elevation sAle 1/11•I•l• • • 1111114 IrdlisibatuuauLISubas YIN*. F., MI Sawa Me.. INWS NM .....— k..lik. aICII a • o OuW ll in. g ISM MO. A* II Z. M. MY ...— a.t.“1...1.4 . .... II... •■ NMI 4.4 ....... Northwest Expo Center Tukwila, Washington UN II Ian 1)etaiird Elevations A.8 EA 1.1.11.1111M ,,--• 144.- 4 3 44. 'Set 3 6%4 4 r NIT - r)pGi‘r-r Ptir.1400-0414.459 Pst&rt •t•i' St-77' noiaknarana 7-1 z Ntvli TUFL'-`0 Elevation • • • • • • . • - • • • • -• • •- - • ■• -• -• • - . • • • • •-- • _•••• - • _ _ • - Platt • • IE. Stred 344nIt I IVA 90033 24114 . Laochky Mirquardt & Nrd1.111111 Haat =lb= 5uhe 211 • Bldg. 2 300.120th Ateaue14.1. 114114., WA 92002 2064314131 161411r4 pi 2307 214.1 A Stank. WA 91121 206-4114494 Northwest Expo Center Tukwila, Washington MIL B 1993 IlEVR.14 ._ Sign at Interstate 405 Scale: 14%1..0" .. A.10 501 Nert9e Building NI 5scond Ares. Seatilo. WA 91104 206411.1140 ■.„....... /4411(.11.,199.1 BAB • CE 4'~ .6... cry �ws NT Im cno'Iorwrhrsmote{sa.ists^" NDSELEVATIor-AfTrOisc;1 PKoH wI;5-f It121.4rcTio,-1 a wrfir v..uar{ y.i51*^ T I 4or s.i5LPyr • _1_1.1_ ..� ..-, E�tF{AT GOW�EP- r h., ",;,,,,,,, x.,,, ,.Y ..- y.q...+. ._,,,,,, µ,. _.. & N& S ILlrfa.►W AAA.* .,,, , ,� nb�.....a W ..4.111, min." �� Northwest Expo Center Tukwila, Washington Tutu\ 1 C, I) Silo Studies A.11 ATTACHMENT K t nr:.,.cm..arc.. ,Ie. • • _ M�•vN�MM *'` -- .ciam� .1G lie ✓"are ; ► �wsN� �M • " r 8� • /4alAe .Vr11Ae b . n••MnCaN''w•�W!.w1.in +) G1.0 nM3.!44'66•• ; 7 \'� \/\/ \- \ } West Valley lltghl!"y- O/ <,'t� / Enlarged Plan Typ. @ Puget Power Parking 9ecryav�r•m•o• . Union Pacific Railroad Wetland ISO Mugged Wetland now Fugal Pow. Substation Amu 6666_ - -r PSP & L Co. Plant Schedule bCY•.Wr a6vwAmem•ru166 Crum,. yn66.ga..w/ 66166! Tom a.l ll. Ya 1.1F66161.4.11 .II -.q.. x.•1.6666 4 npa..•r.'w.,n�•..q 14a.. r.J. M.,4 4. NI 0 ,uo 666.. /au.w M1a C9 4.16•616./faurob* oar 1666. amsArmrutMe.er...•.. N` n4M 4114 16w J • ...w.. wane* Amp r /tiral•J rr+• 141.4 .J6a•u• w Cow, ru w+6.* u44wwr4•'1,661,Au, 1r Ira 1664, x 666 ..•..o- Mu, CRP n..•...4..a.,.1•*w1i. 14 Ir 44 • if Q. N.6..k ..4 /r.m{J I.u.l 14 4 • I l!l",hHngSchedule ! Fulani Ana LIAM fistula - nndlIype am Wan 1115 lonu1wnm ■, tnd4W.i pale A4.unung Mahl •rgwoAmaHy 34l.al Min Fednnlan 11 fhIng - 441kAl tyre 400 wan 1115 lum11uue on punted Wei pul. MwN0g ho.AM appro./n.1,4 V I.el Mlle. No.. a ;\\ _ (144 Stalls) '••An.>L•14 •a i. t.� . '42 Samlap -- Sala Ileum. •• ❑ C.. 44.41-. t .0 Tanqw l•1■4w1 Irn(44 ■•••/1.1.34 4116••• 1,611 1y6u /14.•a.4r ® Iw... 4a.rt44a •4 r - - -> s _ -_ Annan, Urn Aim ` rlr4 /M.• •M /M.•w••c •111*161••11•6M 444 w.+•• .4. . 4 /�..w n ••M+• •r•6Aa IaJ m.•vnon* m•.* .A Nu N hnM a.• Mown •a•a 16 •4066.1 16.•164 If L r ,; ., i to •. 6666. 24' Man ran tarn i'uanlbxu Entry Tina Dotal ' Exhibition Facility. 24'11104 are We Slum Drainage Swale --- -- Burlington Northern Railroad _South Parking Area (743 Stalls) Scale r . 30'-0' • STA16 OS Nonhe X4411 DM!. 400444. G1. I Marquardt d Nesholm Mi4. 1'.nw61q LtI±.p Exhibition Facility Tukwila, Washington .4144,44.44 e.,, I. South Parking Area L -1 2 S S••M1 fA. 9A633 4114 501 Norton Budding aar ll.. Second WA A Seattle. WA .98104 206.6112.3460 •■•■1n1 net211 1114 4 2 l .11•• •. M. MOOS 4011 6S1 411* 4•6.6.61 246/ Ion A lrl SIM 01 1466* 1664aay .1..641664 - 8 293 U N fT'Y'' ... ...tesiy_ageY WON-WM- /r. vV0 1577),1 AGVV41-4Vtle, A.,-ASTIN110 c=, fln - PSP &L Co. arm 4. %MVO VULG. /V 02■• Section @ Typ. On-site Planting Island • D. CI• 50.0 wovvvION MatitV0 .0■010 Exhibition Facility Scale: 1.. Mr-0" Monte Union Pacific Railroad Exhibition Facility 188,000 NS.F. 21. Sta Ira For Plant Schedule/See South Parking Area Plan Buffington Northam Railroad. • Mt elopmeat. Co. Loothky Marquardt & NelMarm 1.1.(k. MAI. ps Exhibition Facility Tukwila, Washington Amosg.o.,Ms Exhibition Area L-2 CI, • WA. 9/1032 2 21 5•■111 114 0.5. ftl 501 Ned. 11.1ellei 1101 Second A Swami, k.95104 206.6121460 0.61.0 U. III • •14. • Nat It. b.. 11.0. 5.11..... VA. 55005 106 451 2111 1•015v. MI rim A.•••• 5.60V115. HIM 50,5 40.1454 lavloav Ant1144 1-1 IL, .. ;,;. VAR 1 7 '093 COMMUNITy • DEVELOPIV;ENT 1,11/ ,4e^.111_ Typical Bumper Typical Bumper Overhang © Trail Overhang © Property Line 1 a s. i Coy to Pr ovule EAtement , Acta-. Detail @Troll I , •• •flOago•rao ..:222114•9 29641904 499,2.4 ,..2•4444444. *OM/ 2■11% .1111. ■ MM. .11.127,11.“' ilkw.ol • .4, vo• an i_,---.Typ,pedestrian Striping} Symbol i..-- -444C.,:. =710 2.6294,94.61,111, • f ' 91444446.461., .11r446. Of24•1•14, .49 ' 4.4, af• 6,1166.9994.4 •469.41•44.4 ' LI . - I- \ "Ci' il ,i-:.i; rA - LA v. -- :... ' — Puget Power Parking/North (195 Stalls) _ 41' •• 10,....••••••••• ■•••...••• 66' .1.••••••••••• ,•••.•■•■ • • •••••••••.,. •••••.•••• 494441 t,;4•6•464,944..• Section @ orth ParkinOrea____ _Union Pacific Railroad . ',. •.,;..- . \ '. . tx , \ oorr 2•14 , ....',\•,. . \ ... • • ,-)\'' --- ' \ -•:1.,--- It l J , • ./..... 11 L 1 1 111 , .....-------- • - \ D ention Ponds \ r '12 a Tk.• Itr . - t ••• tt foui Kau • aov 1:olArgo1 TlantSloot L-41' • Inol, Dock, .f• O.r..•■••••‘-‘ ••••-•••■ 1. •• .• •• _ t-v•-ro•-•-••-% • • Mom Drainage Swale Burlington Northern Railroad .....i....•.:. ..... : . = . :: .. .:::::. ...:4....':::..:. ... .. :.::;::. • • • ' l&6 L!) 1,-..,:l:f:' ' - *__--- • -,•--''''-'÷''''''''''''';'r''''rz':------------' . North Parking Area h. . s.(716: Sit:150.151w For Plant Scl cilule/See South Parking Area Plan Nurihe MI Of M14666.4934 4494.161.o Izot1 Ikto• loproent. Co. I./milky Marquardt 11, *Alm lin MI loGooloag Aolt_.L, Exhibition Facility Tukwila, Washington Oneu8 //or North Parking Area L-3 3 LAIL, S ttttt Soo!. klaml• WA. 98033 •1122•4114 .. , 1 501 Norio,. lloildlog ROI Second A Sra1114, WA.96104 206.682.3460 4.4...1 Sea• 111 1114 2 ,,,,, ,,,,,,, ,.,..., 1411 ttttt •4.9•005 2144212111 /./ , 2104 1441 114.94171 21. 441 1694 1••••••• .04010,1 J (Tttiale ,nr.Nw /a.w1.w 4S. 14.1. w IArwl.w.w r.law mere n.we.ea, np, 3'm. 14.14 44 44a w •a ). aou./a.. «s..�., s • 4,1.1u. 4...•4 o..x v 3'..w. 0- •,ewy04044.44- .4n111•4/ e3'... . Mw.y,.vOne141,.1 .11„.Y.x r...�, 1 J, . 44.4./KIN Viii- r,,,.■.•... 1....,..1 10u Cc>•M4...∎∎roe.Iru�w. 1441 Iywm•..p...Nw..l.x n3'., M -14 • e.111 /1,1.ny �l..1.1 Ia.. Am AY R.. ro.... w4, h. wro a......outt moan.. Lem ....1x44 s.4• ware al un4.• >w� 4.•x44 0144, 31,11' i.4.•,.•.r. Grir•nrrguY• ;Lug 10 .u3' • 10,+41x44 Nuwi :..,1- •11-.11. t1;- -•11_1!4. si ...,' -4•-14._+F-.71f..-: {...-e3' Section 1.10 3'1 10 0- Unlon�l!4citic Railroad \ Enlarged Plan @ Railroad Undercrossing Scale P.20'-0- Ty .palnkd,teel/ 4444. 24' Min. Fire Lane I ImnbS l wuanl UI FLemha -1 11, curb, . 3'p ear �G 3'•R �•:,�'. • Seal was • Typ. gray cone, ,a., s . contrasting co . 41 (smooth finish to/lampblack t 1n ) 11 �. • - Pedestrian Striping �•, Ci PedenunCanb{ry North Parking Area (See' Sheet L•31 ' t Truck Docks Trp. 4041 tree gale and tame - T)p. w,IdN 444,4 bench Tvp. bb r - H.C. Arreuba. 1'a kin5 l 112 It - ATV - - -- Entry Plaza - Enlarged Plan North • • O d Development. Co. luuhkr Marquardt & Ne,llnlm Mao e..,oh1y Aldw1 E x h i b i t i o n F a c i l (s �/ 'I'ukN'ila, Washington i t y +......a .3'4• North Entry Plaza L -4 • d• 51rtv1 South d. WA. 911025 22•4114 501 Norto• N•Ildl• S01 Second Attn.e� S.W.. tt'A.98101 20611821460 .dune ,x.. all . Mq.r :� �an",•.•t•n.r. 4,.,.e.•,. 41.1.1. 14,0 sal 111.3' 1.00.0• „e3' n.x A ,,xxe..',.4,11' ,a uli44a IaMw. •An,lwl O oo B 93 C: ", :11.i i, t s TY O.E V E L O P i v E N.. T Puge ?mow —7711 • V' • 19111 V1 t 4) t • t ; .. • . 1 1 . I ; ••• 111,1 Union Pacific Rai road fi .... • ., , • • 7 7 ... „ , . ........... „ . 311 Ittv too 24 Min Ft! {A," 3;:t; • • • .,. 6.11Y1.1 'hp, Pewit 1■•■■•• - 7,1•4114.. • /no. Exhibition Facility 153,000 N.S.F. • , ... 2C 21.. Fire U.* le1~1.11AlyeWMEMOMenntliallanounwnesegalltatelefoetboaticHntentocntsatmas1 South Parking Arca See Sheet 1.--1 5,alt. 1" 5u.0 ' st) . 1,1dttle Partial Plan 1 --, For Plant Schedule I See South Parking Arca I'lan' Sheet 1.-1 ■ North Parking & Ste Sheet L-3 I Burlington Northern Railroad ,...,ofttrato • • ',A Dc..b.i....t. Co. 1.ou-hky Mar laarat & Nut holm 1.1,4,6,....1iIRK All.....j2. E),Ilibition 1■aci1 it y Tukwila, Washington ,....,..........,. Staged Construction Plan L-5 .+1, Strect Sou Oa 122.1. ICA. 011032 22 4114 / 501 ,01111m Iluiltliat 1101 Second Avr/00. Seattle. WA.911104 200 6112. 3160 5•10. 111 1114 7 300 12. .... • , 311 1,11nut. •■ /MIN 100 451 21111 11U7 1,■•■ ,III, IA •11121 200 41.1 1 4. 1•Iulms, Ast141.1 Pto • R • NIT. 8 1E213 DaVELOFJIT • .• b ZH3MIHDV11V GRAPHIC SCALE rat 1 flaw rt. CCNWC1RM RAit +AY NAN A 1 -50.w PUGET 00170!1 2 l6 G - 04]5.02. '. NlN1r A N[ADu R . 100000' TON CIAYI Nob 1 - 77.117 IiAY a.uaem 1� I aar -II 1R1 _,000 od -1 711 gaSg — — r 3 _ Z5r4—ET —5 s� 1CAY 55771 A?Mae.6110 � .. ]4'10• tl� I 1 1� G . 00!.'12. 161.1.1. � - - -� R : fJ.00 )�4i MY Yn1 I M• 0a'a). 1 ) 2001011' S Y R .1161 >.00' ItSVIX (10' . 50•) i 473 ). Saw' y .. y 9 357 52 02 r I • 1. 5).w' 4 'II 02,11 2l• [ 4 4 �i'��mm21w 1 I�.q w00'`v1e 149a I qq�� i SSS"' •_s. —. wv u„ 6 406,847 S0. FT. j. iii aid € S. O 1 'e.4, I I 9.34 ACRES y, r2e•'B 1 � 1 I$'', 7322 ea' II II II - - - - - -- -JI -_ 50170 1/4 MI. SEC. 25 CST. MA CONTROL 5CN,0Y 701 0 Or antrum antrum 730 000010(5 75 00N0 3110104. MG K212229005 x 011755• C 0.0040701 NO INO. COY 0111 *02110.1 101101100 Y451ps.Y 710115 AS 10007(0 1 -31 -10 .10.11 14313.3. 1 ----- - --- — 52 .1_2! — 7 1 4_ PG 55 (0.0714 1)211W — 2ass25' — -- 00 CONC. NON 73/60050 PIN I 0731 Y 2.7 NAT 01 SIMAO[ 510 351 1.050 HENRY A. HEADER 7,10. 5/5• N /010.7 K 17,1511 KC. ronnw5m E$ N $na. N931w9 w 1Art mACI IE$ SITE PLAN Exhibition Facility Tukwila, Washington Md.,NI Derrloopmeut. Co. Irochky Marquardt & Nesholm Max O•.*.Illy 01511.1 11.0. 111.1115 11 2307100 A,,,., 213 Lake 5 S..lk 501 Nano. Iluildi.11 1274.....* x r. a, lu • 15u1 Klrkla.d. S•A.91033 301 Sec..d A 4.44...., 110.15000 x0i.i4 lii. 206.322.4114 Scalll.. 010,93104 Mb 121 11125 206.602.3460 7740,,, r..l—. 14.1.,73 AN4001 S.1 am 0735 aruI -173 ✓>135R _M it 173 11 111!?: 8 SEE SHEET 1 GRAPHIC SCALE ! T - ........ _ �![4- MM. 50100 ]�AS[YlNlla . SW)� EP's ppuuI I { .2I N AWLS g C 5-nw. CONC. 1W 1111255 P11 0ML r 5r1 n4) OR 5MO020 11 Y0 151 PC.50 040. 5/0.1152021111 VAIN CMS 211101 RLC 071221,005 '2057 VALLI, 1.1200 0137,13 , aaa O 3. 12303_ it 6- ¢7,13.19• R . ]IlJ 11' t$0 240453 LOC23ar1 L . 1M1' __ Jw ws I]l J' I ]xs' C— .11 "11 A WON P.M 11 \\ n.7, 167 - 00 oY \\ �$}4 a �CyMCC I 0 L. 205.21 )..i•Tf 1 7" Mi \ P 3.IW00' 3.• - �' \ L. 5,135' it 5213, ORID9 3.10.010 or 40N•S PRODUCED \ — — — _ — _ .. _ _ -... \ SITE PLAN J � 3 g Exhibition Facility Tukwila, Washington Mclool Hevel1pmeol, Co. L schky Mugu/nil & N0hnlm u11n r.....e14 AwYr M 3307 114. 13111 iW iii \ 101 213 L.6. Slr..l S0416 6ir /1..4. WA. 93033 206322.4114 501 Nor1.R IIAIIdi5 301 Surma A S..ul, 2A.93104 206632.3460 ,r.111n1 3.11.111 • I1d3.1 100 12071 20731 21321�s L.d..,. 3r.31un S.2 213F fro 0271 urn caul f•]• • as k.1,11,7!, r 1 ¢ ".It-N:: — fa 117 '.'V4 / e...m,.• ,1 i / S6CT\ON .. -y\Sfty • L a .o o `e ",.4� ,. �« . P L°: ,,S1L ! vc sn•- e..4a .t ,�4‘.. s. i,• lwt ... _ ��� Zvi e•t --� - ago I ` _ ov.c. . v ..o _ - a,Vht, _�I —__�_ NOW w••aa , icon. t} I __. —. _itwuo .w .. C _h. rl,v�tR _ . • H y • » _ „' __. _ ,,�.•eoo I •ou / fo 1 - �,.er t1• cO44J ` J,C ••Yi L ta •�t 7C77-...:777.:..S.,•:777:77.7.7. y '_•fa4"V xict¢ .'I^ "'2.".:T.:-.... i % y ( �Y w i 1 1 -M •,,..., an r.•4•va., • . I �e n _ .e T ..., b4. -n ix —.. i T2_,,,_ .as ,.., J >o a.� , .ate .aeTr' •>s... b - : L. c...-A, . '- 8w... r MO I \ rii o`%-i.•• • --- 1 s ,•a �w "o°o'on 5 ST-Wt. n.T.^ a 1.,•••n t e� �a Pa �i�: v ,. w .w.a - .2 TL, -I.= 2;4.74.. G,.o GYP on. G1'� \•3L0'\i4 af� ISM ~aLTI+.M A•)- ¢r ea.na.,t LPLCt , �a,,, Nd NJ G to N :r Y' \ e y.- 4c atxV 1 , SC s+ �f t ,3 � ��1 M V.V., f > e( J r �> ii ¢477..5 o i r $� I. ____ -'�� .mod —V. L. - t I ,. •L,•[ L° ,. We,. W •ooe, U 3 a Nc f _441I .e _ . � w•eww .i ='�44 wr A9 QO O FW OF \L q. -1.)-•'"W .° � t ,., .0 ».L - J A vtLYF.e • '• t °• w oL . ..' V. a,.CO.a,a[ -• ...r � � '`% �� ‘7111111/ "° McLEOD DEVELOPMENT ° �.*•• rulwua, WA. �w, { r- PP w•".1.,. ,3%,..... , L3,-,,,,,, •.„y. ,•■2", CO. ICU. ROAD UTILITIES 1S3 it "•'i °.r'' E,";' ai?, ENIT C15 m 2 4.444r553,1, is,. 5.15-51,5.•-•55,..[-T 5 OH. .r4:4■M "‘7....5'5L4'5•%1V•241471 5,55. •■■5505, O.n5.55.4155.0555.e..55,45, t....,......n.5-ta.r....,..... io......- out ,o05.1 7•Zii,'T,(Tti■Intf ‘:71-41:"ei.e.. To. 10,04, c*-4 \ • . r s 5.55,5 555.4. TO , 10 M5.5.55.1.554. 5555/555555 O.554.5t I -1-- (3, '`^k.t•XA-,1:11.`e"' 11.5..5155.1 41..0 1-55.....5.rwrtt ago., • ...co,' a. r550,1007'5.10.1555- V5150-5/ _ ti...55.4515.25[151.9. 551,5555155,1 o 5551-4 -c.o”,,Lomrto .osrol-71 1-1-, • ' • ,_ 2.5 c-5.5.5.555.595.0 Tor ko.51...O.O.i. . 4' G.55555.1.,...0 1.5.65,515 4.5.15.510.4.1555 ; 4 — „qt., 1 ' 1 id ij; i/ 11 1111;iiii, : % ----4- -1 i \=',.1t1 1 ..z1-=_i, ,1 111. A 1.\ "''''""" \ 0 !II ''''''''''''.1 !, I 1i. lit- T i-i, f II r-. 7-i- li,n,i 1 l'01\ \-- i i 1\1 1 ,iy \ : I 11 k\ !)m 1, .„.„......„ ,,,,f II , ,:, •i „ SEC 25, T23N, R4E, WM , . 9 ! I j 5'4i -nt11505.555;.4.1,5.4"' fL5-5.5.4 Yo.No5 Po..coP V- ow ,oi Ni000r. • 15.5.55, L- 55.5aot _.• r SO.5-11.1,551550...ot of......155.o. e r 1510.100 EXHIBITION FACILITY PRIVATI ACCESS ROAO 151550 1.5.5LOO S4 • • 8 "S93 �. tz 11 ice. .**. ef. •SurA,-r• .sra r...MorA ••■..4399. • ...v. ___________ -------------- Tv ( NMI) 0.1,1.0. W I, - .4/ ROI, , a4 / 4C■ 1— .44-4 n J.N3HNHD DAM 11494 V\ 241 ...M.O. 0. 4.1 scr GRADING PLAN • Exhibition Facility . Tukwila, Washington McLeod Development. Co. Loschky Marquardt eh Nesholm Md.. 91911_1_e_r 213 LA. S South 501 NAtto• 11441111ln Wigs att......'n a mom. WA. Kirklaag. WA. 98033 801 Second Avenue No ----- VC 441494' SIN 441.1494 206422.4114 5.4a11.. 18A.98104 904b 411 1134 206.6821460 umo Mt W. NI... ardor. S.5 t V :\ 8 ';393 W IR I \2\ NLVO St' §,l..e.1: 0,11-4(y lt<n w:o ri i`�.c.wtav Ali ewaa. .• . w.o GRADING PLAIN pia w1'V. Exhibition Facility Tukwila. Washington • • S.6 L • ._.tJ y I ' 1 L YQWI n.OM0r0 — ,6253 00 r. VAMP. r awe y. ;3 U 52. 3.,f \c _ 1s -0,2t rdillor Ale :./11t1 RACK 51. w05 0050,0.. \s•0%K \ \ -y / \ORM OETISSloss PcN0 RnT,..T.L 1.O.wts Q.. I■.. ...c.w.o., SWKt 0or•StCT IM Y , \ • 1 +•, l4 c T 1 1 __ t,.+v ♦5w_5ow r �.tts•<RN ¢r.co.00at fmtaN GRIDING PLAN ✓ rt0k:t'•.t0t.:;:.::;a. w....tw� s, "w0•r¢c 56 t, 411) 11=., io .e M \1,4.4 Nt'.YV 100 V1AD FLOOD — !LEV. 11.0 Exhibition Facility Tukwila. Washington S.7 AxY 8 1 YY .tP'� DE.:4:1E-IiCAPivi EN 17 7. • 1- 1,1 —ric.-1--• .111 •-• L1-1-,......_.......... - --i; t--- ,.11 • I \ - -I• , iil I. -u- i • I I. i . 1 i 11‘ ...1 i 1-r- )_t_ I 1:1: :I Li. —I --.I •11.1 \ 1 ) ) • \ ?•;•......:4,:::.Q_.1 ....-• ..- 1'111'4 ;. ,.....,,,. — ...-.. .... -.....—..., 1 V ' 1 • • to...11... , • \\........ .,.... ..... V, \ 11 11 ( .. • •■•• L ti 1, i..'------ - - . , ,„ 1 )•.------ -. . A,;(-. \:":'..:------. ,, •••■•••••--5 ;1i ,.. --.." 1..-----' I ''''''''',..,.,__.....„..•-•.'. \ ..----• ..---------'-'••• ) • ‘ - ••,‘ , Ii I ......„....-- ..../ \s, ...„......,........ , 1, i j1, .1.. ....• .. ., • • t\ '11 \ ''''■....----"-'-. '".."----‹.....,...---.:"...A I .....) 4, ......-.4.........-- • .. . !' \ . , 1 • ell ..., , ... 1 I :1:.V.- \ '■•• • •-- ---l'A.Zss•••••• ••••• • . \ •• .. • .... >:-.... ,... j.•!....,-- . - l. . I.. _ "••"--. .,.---<--, , L., ' \ ---. .. .-----., 1 ",.... __„,___,,, ...-„--,' 1.,....—....---.---: - _,....■• -,7 ^ 1.--.1;.....::-.--". - . ..---I_..._ ; ; ........1_.. I • - L--"_i. ."171---f17777-.' f---1•;717-t-r-T—_1..* --I --:::'--1-.----1 - -• .‘ - •;;;;;;;;....., , t -"•••••—• . • .11 • yr.1••■•1 1,...ror. • .1, I' 1 .\ \ \ \ \ \ -1\ \ \ I \ •1••■• ..' _.--,0." \ ''''''':'‘..."-:•-•:, ;.... I.'s. ■ .... 1/11•1•1 11.1.10 \ 0 .1* ■• \ \ .•-•• . \ ........, \ r IL • 1-- \ !!..- \ \ ..... ........--• \ 1 \ . SICI.•• 2,ETt C11,2 1....st. . ...NA, r■••••• 11..... •%•• ....,...••••, ••?•47.:••!!• L • ., dm-0-1+7-1171 rrcrpfcr r-- rn z GrIADING PLAN • z 1 .11 10 z..1■•• sr 1. VI. 11000. 1 IC 11 0 I x h 11)11.10 i Faci 1ily •k i la \\lash ngt S.7 �;«Y;1 +,t- �31i•,p „jr.;n iii:��:•t:f�,a..' ''.i �:`F�irl�rCir.ilr "ai'2i. triEily{+ 1 -405 HEADING WEST VISUAL. SYSTEMS r a Siinmcs e 79 JJ SEA) T E - VAKIMA ..... lietti.4 tip �� MCM"CMOM<P`NM.MM`ON< •rv^vt..... 1.0 M)M.M<IMOM,.0111, MY`WMTNMCOMNw CIINO ,,MI NVNVVCN< MO< OMn.^. MN O! roa. MMMM MnE!^!.h'INCI.^MMeb.tiMMC<NMn..• Mil ^NMWMNM !.•••f E) M) YM! ntuv' v): 4:^ Y.' 1f) YC++` h^ 9K<+';. m. N< n^ NMY" a^!! OYNM!` Yt' O: YYI 'YK!M`)N`^'"v,^•YN!MM'�ry:!r: ni vn'l�: ^'^^!Y':t!<N!!•:••.�•'44.° .'•.. {FSYLY [� ,�, .,�,��, .{ � �i�tj� yy�y�� {y�Yy.}y��w+ l`fi.�yy��� J���.:�.•h ph�ri.;�i` "',y�y �y L.i:`r n_'`i:.'T..l.d •uS1 U u*[:�YS f ' :f "..I +V :;:::1�'.�.� .:j •'tJS .l�'e'Y4� a7 ,'y', i,��: ` :.' 5.5:.'LS':.'l �itl:U•1 ''�' �� � .�. �' d C.7.< ,.(TLx. '.sa�:.':'t,i:_7!: 3�` ]S ''sL.''J�'�L =.^ , tu:�.e.. 1 �:` < t L•'J. 16:as:'.l. YdI.L:L:I 1 -105 HEADING EAST ..- .._= .. .'' $.Z : b�> �� E4.`1`,."3"1-1."'W Sl 19 ; '. - ''•• ::. >l: :. ,^ ,.w. . ' . .1 '-• ". .._ ,.. : fie iHM}•..,i%,..w; r•r.r;:.mz4re,,,m,,7.,,,, STAHLE YAKI/MiA 11 1-CrU/ES J GJ�',E.0 J 4i Boeing Commercial Airplane Group PG. Bo): 3707 . Sea• WA 98124-2207 March 5, 1993 R- 6040 -RHW -1223 Ms. Denni Shefrin Department of Community Development City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 Subject: McLeod Exhibition Facility Dear Denni: We appreciated receiving the Architectural Review Board submittal for the subject project. As we discussed on the telephone the overall architectural treatment of the facility has been significantly improved. Many of the other concerns that we previously raised have also been addressed. Please continue to keep us informed on any future developments for this project and other related activities in the area. Sincerely, M5 wGku,v•J Robert H. V' icklein Program Manager Longacres Park Org. R -6040, MS 6Y -50 Phone (206) 393 -7106 ATTACHMENT AA Ci .4 ` or Earl Clymer, Mayor CZ��Y )F RENTON Planning /Building /Public Works Department Lynn Guttmann, Administrator March 17, 1993 D' Mr. Rick Beeler Director Department of Community Development City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 r r? q r. �E G7 f a l�.J'J SUBJECT: Comments on February 5, 1993 and March 5, 1993 Architectural Revisions to McLeod Exhibition Center Dear Mr. Beeler: Thank you for the opportunity to review the February 5, .1993 Architectural Revisions for the proposed McLeod Exhibition Center. We have reviewed the latest design changes and offer the following comments for the Board of Architectural Review's consideration. 1. Planning for future a future rail station & pedestrian connections to Boeing Longacres Park • It appears that a commuter rail or light rail line and station could be developed in the vicinity of this project and Boeing Longacres Park sometime in the next ten years. For example Burlington Northern is currently pursuing development of a commuter rail line with the State of Washington. • A future rail line and station offers the opportunity to help mitigate traffic impacts from the exhibition facility, and more importantly the Boeing's Longacres Park Development. Questions /Comments /Possible Revisions • The BAR could request the applicant to study how the site plan concept could be revised in order to accommodate future pedestrian connections to a commuter or light rail station in the vicinity of this project and Boeing Longacres Park. This study could also explore provision of pedestrian connections to Boeing Longacres Park. 2. • Landscaping • We are pleased to see the March 5th revision now includes landscaping along the east side of the exhibition facility in the wedge- shaped strip between the 20 foot fire lane and the east property line. Again, as with the parking area landscaping, we are concerned about the type of species selected and the size of the planting material at initial occupancy. Questions /Comments /Possible Revisions • We would like to see the BAR require large enough trees and other plant material installed at the time of planting, .to achieve the intended screening and softening of the proposal at occupancy. • • ATTACHMENT BB 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton. Washington 98055 n nc n• oco rn.nA I VC CJV. orrvr, cn a ..71701.A ,nr. Pnt-r rrwci .14170 Rick Beeler McLe' ''Exhibition Facility Comments March 10, 1993 3. Light & Glare Page 2 • The schematic drawings show wall mounted light fixtures at a height of 24 feet along the east facade of the 859 ft long building that, unless shielded, would likely be visible from the proposed office park on the Longacres site. Questions /Comments /Possible Revisions • The BAR should require that all exterior lighting fixtures be screened or shielded so that all direct visible glare is contained on -site. 4. Facility Concept • It is likely that the porous, sandblasted concrete surfaces of the exterior wall system could become darker and dirtier over time due to air pollution and fallout from adjacent 1 -405 and railroads. • It appears, in the latest drawings, that the applicant is now proposing a system of screening devices to attempt to hide the roof top HVAC units. This is generally acceptable; however, plans to illuminate these units at night would appear to defeat this purpose. Questions /Comments /Possible Revisions • The BAR could ask the applicant to address how the porous architectural concrete wall system surfaces could be impacted by weathering and pollution fallout. 5. Signage & Graphics • The BAR may wish to ask the applicant to consider the possibility of the building, itself, acting as the support structure for the large facility identification sign? Questions/Comments/Possible Revisions • The BAR may wish to require the applicant to study an alternative which places the identification and message sign on the north facade of the building, itself. We wish to thank you and your staff for giving us the opportunity to comment on this important project. - In particular we want to thank Denni Shefrin, for briefing us on the latest revisions and showing us the model earlier this week. If we can be of further assistance, please feel free to contact me at 235 -2569, or Don Erickson, of our Development Services Division, at 277 -5582. Sincerely, t � / ., O, Ji 1 / t �b ( %�i t i4 :) //i • Lynn A. Guttmann, Department Administrator cc: Environmental Review Committee Jim Hanson Don Erickson memo Paul Forsander Lenora Blauman . ..., :: City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor March 23, 1993 Department of Community Development Rick Beeler, Director Vickie Erickson Washington State Department of Transportation District 1 15700 Dayton Avenue North P.O. Box 330310 Seattle, WA 98133 -9710 Subject: McLeod Exhibition Facility - L92 -0050 Dear Ms. Erickson: Thank you for your written response regarding the above referenced development proposal. As we discussed earlier today, a Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance (MDNS) for this project was issued July, 1991. The environmental review was threefold. It included a) a change to the City's Comprehensive Plan designation, b) a rezone, and c) a proposed 230,000 net - square -foot exhibition facility (see attached). A number of technical studies were reviewed as part of the environmental analysis including a traffic study. Several of the required mitigation measures identified in the attached MDNS respond to anticipated traffic impacts of the facility. The City is currently proceeding with the Design Review process. Because no significant changes have been made to the project as compared to the original proposal, the City has determined that no additional environmental analyses would be necessary. In fact, the building square footage now proposed is less than the amount considered in the original traffic analysis. You had also mentioned that you had forwarded information concerning the proposed free - standing sign to another staff member. I would appreciate comments by 5 p.m. Wednesday, March 24 at the latest. Feel free to contact me directly at 431 -3663 or fax comments to me at 431 -3665. I hope I have clarified some of your questions. Thank you again for your response. Sincerely, Denni Shefrin Associate Planner Attachment: EPIC -26 -90 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665 Ink Washington State Wi Department of Transportation Duane Berentson Secretary of Transportation DATE: March 18, 1993 2( District 1 15700 Dayton Avenue North PO Box 330310 Seattle, WA 98133 -9710 , nn (206) 440- 4000ir' �' n i�'''"" TO: Mr. Rick Beeler City of Tukwila,. Director Community Development 6300 Southcenter Blvd., Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 Subject: SR 405 MP 0.60 CS 1743 Public Hearing Notice McLeod Exhibition Facility File No. L92 -0050 FROM: Richard L. Anderson, Utilities /Developer Services Engineer Washington State Department of Transportation District 1 15700 Dayton Ave. North, MS 113 PO Box 330310 Seattle, WA 98133 -9710 Thank you for giving us the opportunity to review the Public Hearing Notice for this project which is located immediately south of SR 405 between the Union Pacific and Burlington Northern Railroads, west of Long Acres Racetrack. Our response is checked below. We have reviewed the subject document and have no comments. The project will have no significant impact on the state highway system. We have already submitted comments on this project. Our comments are included in our letter dated from to . We have no further comments on this project. X The State recommends that a traffic study be prepared to analyze the state intersections that are impacted by ten or more of the project's generated peak hour trips and also determine what mitigation measures, if any, would be required. If you have any questions, please contact Don Hurter at 440- 4451, SCAN 440 -4451 or Vickie Erickson at 440 -4452, SCAN 440 -4452 of my Developer Services section. VE:ve filename .d/ Earl Clymer, Mayor CITY OF RENTON Planning /Building /Public Works Department Lynn Guttmann, Administrator March 17, 1993 D C;-, Mr. Rick Beeler Director Department of Community Development City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 1 6193 • SUBJECT: Comments on February 5, 1993 and March 5, 1993 Architectural Revisions to McLeod Exhibition Center Dear Mr. Beeler: Thank you for the opportunity to review the February 5, 1993 Architectural Revisions for the proposed McLeod Exhibition Center. We have reviewed the latest design changes and offer the following comments for the Board of Architectural Review's consideration. 1. Planning for future a future rail station & pedestrian connections to Boeing Longacres Park • It appears that a commuter rail or light rail line and station could be developed in the vicinity of this project and Boeing Longacres Park sometime in the next ten years. For example Burlington Northern is currently pursuing development of a commuter rail line with the State of Washington. • A future rail line and station offers the opportunity to help mitigate traffic impacts from the exhibition facility, and more importantly the Boeing's Longacres Park Development. Questions/Comments /Possible Revisions • The BAR could request the applicant to study how the site plan concept could be revised in order to accommodate future pedestrian connections to a commuter or light rail station in the vicinity of this project and Boeing Longacres Park. This study could also explore provision of pedestrian connections to Boeing Longacres Park. 2. Landscaping • We are pleased to see the March 5th revision now includes landscaping along the east side of the exhibition facility in the wedge- shaped strip between the 20 foot fire lane and the east property line. Again, as with the parking area landscaping, we are concemed about the type of species selected and the size of the planting material at initial occupancy. Questions/Comments /Possible Revisions • We would like to see the BAR require large enough trees and other plant material installed at the time of planting, to achieve the intended screening and softening of the proposal at occupancy. 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 •■ ..c n• PCO rn•rn •I•IC e1W o cr Jr, cn a ♦TCP 1 ♦ T MCC PACT !`AWCI IUFR Rick Beeler McLeod Exhibition Facility Comments March 10, 1993 Page 2 3. Light & Glare • The schematic drawings show wall mounted light fixtures at a height of 24 feet along the east facade of the 859 ft long building that, unless shielded, would likely be visible from the proposed office park on the Longacres site. Questions/Comments /Possible Revisions • The BAR should require that all exterior lighting fixtures be screened or shielded so that all direct visible glare is contained on -site. 4. Facility Concept • It is likely that the porous, sandblasted concrete surfaces of the exterior wall system could become darker and dirtier over time due to air pollution and fallout from adjacent 1 -405 and railroads. • It appears, in the latest drawings, that the applicant is now proposing a system of screening devices to attempt to hide the roof top HVAC units. This is generally acceptable; however, plans to illuminate these units at night would appear to defeat this purpose. Questions/Comments/Possible Revisions • The BAR could ask the applicant to address how the porous architectural concrete wall system surfaces could be impacted by weathering and pollution fallout. 5. Signage & Graphics • The BAR may wish to ask the applicant to consider the possibility of the building, itself, acting as the support structure for the large facility identification sign? Questions/Comments /Possible Revisions • The BAR may wish to require the applicant to study an altemative which places the identification and message sign on the north facade of the building, itself. We wish to thank you and your staff for giving us the opportunity to comment on this important project. In particular we want to thank Denni Shefrin, for briefing us on the latest revisions and showing us the model earlier this week. If we can be of further assistance, please feel free to contact me at 235 -2569, or Don Erickson, of our Development Services Division, at 277 -5582. Sincerely, t11e,11 3/mz4cJJi) Lynn A. Guttmann, Department Administrator cc: Environmental Review Committee Jim Hanson Don Erickson Paul Forsander memo Lenora Blauman L.€12-.a)sa #14 MCLEOD EXHIBITION FACILITY 1-4 2.- coso DwineIIt VISUAL SYSTEMS Since 1940 3614 Sixth Ave. S. Seattle, WA 98134 -2213 1-800- 477 -SIGN (206) 292 -8865 FAX (206) 682 -4781 March 12, 1993 Denni Shefrin City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Blvd Tukwila, Washington 98188 FAX: 431 -3665 Denni, Enclosed please find photographic representations depicting the approximate size and bcation of our proposed main identity sign for "Northwest Expo Center ". The intent is to give a visual idea as to how this display will interact with the immediate environment, specifically the I -405 freeway, power poles and lines, trees and buildings. The exact location and height will be confirmed by an on site flag test, which will involve hoisting a full sized representation into place. The current location, size and height are the result of a preliminary flag test that we performed last June. At that test we lifted a 4' X 8' sheet of plywood as a target and drove 1 -405 in both directions until reaching a suitable height. That test indicated the curvature and rise in the west bound lanes as being the most difficult obstacles to overcome from both an advertising and a safety standpoint. The height that we are currently settled on appears to be the minimum height at which this sign will be effective, particularly from west bound traffic. We are showing the bottom of the sign approximately 12' above the existing railing. This seems to be a height that will allow motorists adequate viewing time and at a viewing angle that will be comfortable. I have had a discussion with Nancy Guinn (440 -4390) and Dave Deede at the Washington State Department of Transportation. This sign as proposed will meet all of their requirements. J Bruce Bryant DWINELL'S VISUAL SYSTEMS encbsures MAR �R 1 6 1593 Designers, Manufacturers and installers of Custom: Signage 4/ Awnings /t/ Electronics /1/ Vinyl Graphics • 1 -405 HEADING EAST VISUAL. sysT is since 1940 SEATTLE YAKIMA TRI- CITIES 1-405 HEADING WEST VISUAL. SYSTEMS Since 1940 SEATTLE YAKIMA TRI-CITIES MILES CONSULTING (208) 451 -2138 SUITE 211 - BLDG 2 300 - 120th AVE. N.E. BELLEVUE, WA 98005 MEMORANDUM 10 March 1993 To: Denni Shefrin City of Tukwila Planning Dept From: Don Miles Miles Consulting Ref: McLeod Development Northwest Exhibition Center In your request for additional information relating to the size of the Northwest Exhibition Center sign located on the northwest corner of the west elevation we provide the following: Sign Area: 122 SF Wall Area: 29,480 SF % Sign to wall 0.4138 cc McLeod Development City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Rick Beeler, Director MEMORANDUM TO: EPIC -26 -90 File FROM: Denni Shefrin, Associate Planner DATE: March 9, 1993 SUBJECT: McLeod Exhibition Facility: Clarification of Building Area Under EPIC -26 -90 The Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance (EIPC- 26 -90) for this project specified a square- footage 230,000. The purpose of this memo is to substantiate that an addendum to EIPC -26 -90 is not necessary. Traffic mitigation for this project was based the original traffic analysis prepared for a future exhibition facility with a total assembly area of 250,000 square feet. The Design Review application submitted in 1992 proposes a total assembly area of 207,000 square feet with a total gross area of 249,000 square feet. Because the amount of assembly area proposed for the actual building will not exceed the amount of area described in the traffic analysis, no additional significant traffic impacts are anticipated. Therefore, a SEPA addendum is not required. The remainder of the mitigation measures for this project per EPIC -26 -90 remain unchanged. cc: EIPC -26 -90 File L92 -0050 File (DR). ' 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, 'Washington 98188 • . (206) 431-3670 Fax 1206) 41313665 BOEYiW Boeing Commercial Airplane Grour P.O. Box 3707 Seattle, WA 98124 -2207 March 5, 1993 R- 6040 -RHW -1223 Ms. Denni Shefrin Department of Community Development City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 Subject: McLeod Exhibition Facility Dear Denni: We appreciated receiving the Architectural Review Board submittal for the subject project. As we discussed on the telephone the overall architectural treatment of the facility has been significantly improved. Many of the other concerns that we previously raised have also been addressed. Please continue to keep us informed on any future developments for this project and other related activities in the area. Sincerely, tith 1,4itucr Robert H. Wicklein Program Manager Longacres Park Org. R -6040, MS 6Y -50 Phone (206) 393 -7106 t ='t) 8 199;' O,, ,. • City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard • Tukwila, Washington 98188 John W. Rants, Mayor To: Denni Shefrin, Associate Planner From: Don Williams, Parks & Recreation D Date: March 2, 1993 Re: Exhibition Hall Development Comments co, 219 I feel it is appropriate to provide some comments and background information on how our Interurban Trail relates to the Exhibition Hall Project. King County and Tukwila have an agreement with Puget Sound Power and Light Company to construct a trail on their right -of -way west of the project site. In the past we have had several meetings with developer representatives to work out details of how their project will affect our trail or vice- versa. During previous work with the Embassy Suites it was decided the 12 foot trail would be located on the western side of the right -of -way at their location. The developer has shown a trail to be located in the desired location. I would ask the developer to show a detailed cross section drawing of a parking stall area next to the trail. The 12 foot trail should have a 1i foot shoulder "open area" on each side of the trail. These shoulder areas should not have obstructions, including plants. The developer is asked to construct the trail per city specifications. Details of construction design can be provided later. The requirement to construct the trial is the result of the City's agreeing to finalize the location of the trail on the west side of the right -of -way. It will also serve as a safe pedestrian path next to the parking areas. If you have any questions please give me a call. DW /so Phone: (206) 433 -1800 • City Hall Fax (206) 433 -1833 Two letters were received today from D. Miles. One is accompanied with a utility plan showing easement locations for water, sewer, fire access, and storm drainage swale. The second addresses landscaping along 158th. SEPA (EPIC- 26 -90) requires landscaping along this right -of -way. Don provided a plan showing proposed widths along 158th with the suggestion of reducing lane widths from 11 feet to 10 ft to gain more sidewalk width to accommodate trees. I provided both letters /plans to Ron C. for review and comment. I also asked Don about status of other mitigation measures, i.e., developer's agreement, etc. He indicated agreement is in preliminary stages. He agreed to put together a draft document in order for public works to review. SEPA requires transportation improvements or commitments to be provided with the BAR submittal (or building permit if applicable) and lists what to be included. (The fair share should also be determined and addressed in the developer's agreement). I recommended Don become familiar He also indicated photos will be equipment installed on another materials will be submitted Feb Formal submittal will occur Feb. Renton. with SEPA document. provided showing the mechanical building; we clarified some . 8 for the Feb. 9 staff mtg. 12. I requested second set for �. T Transportation Solutions, Inc. 16310 NE Nth Street, Suite 100 Redmond, WA 98052 -3861 (206) 883-4134 (800) 285-4134 FAX: (206) 867 -0898 February 12, 1993 To: Denni Shefrin From: David Markley Subject: Exhibition Facility - Response to City Comments The purpose of this memo is to respond to CiWstaff comments on the Exhibition Facility description submitted as part of the Board of Architectural Review application. These items relate to the Parking and Access Strategy portion of the application and is intended to provide clarity to the understanding of this program. '' Guide Sign Height When a review of the Manual on Uniform Traffic,Control Devices (MUTCD) was made, it found that the lower edge of the sign can be posted at a height no less than 7 feet above the sidewalk grade. The directional arrow can be'placed below the basic guide sign. Thus, the height shown previously can be lowered by about 1 (one) foot from the height shown in previous sketches. Sign Placement Attachment A shows the general location where the guide signs are proposed to be placed. The final location will be determined following careful' field study to avoid conflict with other regulatory or warning signs. The general guidelines for their location were to give drivers 1) periodic reference to assure them they were on the.'correct route and 2) advance warning of where the route turned. FEB 1 6 '693 Paring Lot Ingress and Egress Patterns The ingress and egress patterns for the north and south parking lots are illustrated on Attachments B and C. These patterns are similar to those presented earlier. The basic strategy is to park people as close to the building entrances as .possible and to minimize the number of conflicts between vehicles and between vehicles and people as possible. I trust this provides you with the information needed to provide a clear understanding of the parking and access strategy for this facility. Nonetheless, you and/or the Board are welcome to contact me at any time to clarify any uncertainty regarding these plans. IOU Y•ALDi y ^1 tt' 7V '4" I ITAZI vrt, s'?ri's l 1�o !�'r� /y 1i.0 u . • a/ • �✓ 1 l� -,rL us 1� f 6A�IiW or "c.mw c• • A� c, i n 4 ,: A a' "IOM • PIITA nunou $I 1 m 'n j. gyzi gat • : ,r H7L1\ we 1 a L U. `r Guide Sign TSI Trumyauuoo Solution,. Inc. Attachment A Conceptual Guide Sign System Exhibition Facility . 21 "x 15" 8' TSI buspoN.tico Sotoioot. isc. Figure 9 Typical Guide Sign 20 Exhibition . Facility Nelpon ?Ism . z 7 74(-7147 Gire-s s — 6.40.1. ;Or Puget Power Parking/North • (1 95 Stalls) . • ati•zycrk Section @' orth Parking Area J. • , . . Entsraeri: • Union Pacific Railroad ; • 1..1 .1.11U", ...11-1 I IR 11 14,14141 jw.a.nr 1.1 ;—'111iL " _t.t .... . ... .. ....; t. ..... •• • 41! ' 4_1 I :::::;414.:.• • 11) *11[II 1 g, Lo le 0 v;41 :9,t r7 * " • " )11U'r. • • Storm 'Drainage Styalo • • • • Burlington Northern Railroad.. . • • 405 S /Readerboaid .til.;111145IiIII.1111■■11•111.. I Hit 1.• ---p ti1 1111 • ; ! ' 11 1 I • ... 1 I .1,14' i• • 1, • 1 • • III • al ' • 1 11 • • '1' —• ' • . • • : . . * . ... . ... • 1.1.. • I entic --- North Parking Area _ — psc(7,20e6:s15) ri:1,0,0.... '• 103 For Plant Schedule/See South Parking Area Plan North • %WV:, ;•• 'Marquardt & Neshohn on Building nil A•enwe • Mil.. 2•11e 211 • P111. 2 200•1201$ A ..... 23127 21..1 A 12 t T4. Asp • & Alwriatri ID? C CM/ 11.1• 7.11.,, DA9111/111 ••• ••• —• Exhibition t7 PS, 9.2i min c0104 Ir=a•n .hb' 7 -t0.. ti.R ••■•= • Plant'Schedulc — ,co.irvux>lc.a•.irl \ ` \ : eidart Wp♦ 7. 7e11/AHe 00w',) G7aC nneK tl.id •! ewe 077..[.1.10 ASl. �pY /fILMr� p R � T • \ \l, \. m�e• rr..e� ♦. i ' Enlarged Plan Typ, 0 Puget Power Parking •• '7- . R1LNto,• •`1p:o• 9acy-rcw �•1• • ro••o• 0 K . Union Pa_�ific..Railroad Wetland (s. hilligated wetland MOM) Puget Power Substation A0R11 PSP & L Co. bCJ4.Nru. JrtvnentnKm. cur C,.trgw plvennsvwn/W.dMlr 11nm 1•.7 M. 11411 6)14 el. '.Ina, 501 LLp•u.narr sir sales /Swneg.m Y 1..l. 1011 M. ropulul Mlr. TMI4.' /inn.l•ardy rop4r r rel. 11.11' M, 111 w!! 1•.Ie M. 111 1Y N.17 wens Mei Wrest Na.rMng, See Commas .l.Ymrrpe.0 /WIn0N [rmymu. n•.11• M. 1.p,• m... Sr or. Id.ngalee spaded •r 4. 004 ° 14..e. Wngxiu r;E:d lrar M • maa.76..e. wnguW spacing Il *0 0. 0 ,mean /M.glu One 13,111. M • op. p. home Iu.IYNn /1'umg.wurel 7l• M.1 .p. Lighting Schedule Onus n■gre/Austrian 0sre COeau. gl.N./Soo1 h Sumac ..s ]I. •.varo Lammas Wound Ceb.l. /rwple tot Wmle. Crwpr = Mahw4 aqulWtom/Osegm Up 111111111 71- It rat Sting Arts Light Stature • cutoff type 4001Vatt HYS luminaire on painted steel pole. Mounting Might approximately 33 fret. MM. I fuolcandlel reJfUDn Lighting • cumll type 400 Walt 111'5 luminaire on painted steel pole. Mounting height approximately 30 fret. 1.1,10.1 wm..errr au l.iysrw / Ono Lust.. Muni ry,..n.rM r..oh.nlIJCJ T.rnorna e. l/nanndrr. /3,404 I..mru •tune•/ Cana I.J Nom n'gnm /Iaman•t Raw 0W1014 Vaaemmt Smhd lawn Arta A11'11sa W r.ra4g Arta Slams 11041 be .enlM1 MI4., 1g. R...'/...1. 1.r • cvsr. a.aa:.•a..� ill; I ,I,l.r1l I..I,I,1. �0".�•o nw. s••o {1.+R y ^ r" ' HIIII Ili, It 11 iI 1 Exhibition • 'Facility. • _ e- ad fb�•1NKY ant.-4.7,77 600 40 1.j .tiHL1 11'rt �'Il ��r�r�:�/ • .�'%.. ,. , /• • I4E111 rf ..,„4.1 ,,,,,. •4.1„• 1 Bill I firiI iT T I 11 4 h 11 1' 1 Burlington Northern Railroad Storm Dralnlge Swale South Parking Area (743 Stalls) ;Scale r•' 0 •:n. l.o3chlcy Marquardt & Neohnlm Mu..c..n.eul Atelier p1 43 & A.rriat.r • inks. 0, 1101 • A(12* .H''r Oezzlys:1t/AC — /051e1W'r■7L1Y : JYO V(Nl4K.II5;'/V ca% n,., 1L' 514! r•r Nt■J &dm/eery \ \ / �t1 /' \ lfG+�i'ia \ a • i1 ,2'o' 772 -Yd. OIri,4'4YL i 2'0✓4t 7y/, Enlarged Plan Typ. @ Puget Power Parking . Union Pacific.Railroad Wetland (See Mitigated Wetland Plans) Burlington Northern Railroad Puget Power Substation Access PSP & L Co. III. !I Os' ; 1 1 1 1 i�1es ` �� hwa ``. • Plant'Sthedule bC.k edrus dceurrens /Inane Cedar Cntaegus plueropyrum/ Wuhingion Thom t Uquldambar stymeillua /Swectgum Populus Mgr* 'ltallea' /Lombardy Poplar 1' t ► Mnur nlgn/Austrlan Pine 's1/ Rho gtabn /SmoolhSumac 1 Euonymus Mats compscta/Winged Euonymus 6'•7 1.3, 3' 2' or !' -1 51 bn 15' o.e ,h "temp Euonymus fortune) Colorata' /Purple leaf 4' Winter Creeper spr P-11 Mabonla aqutbilum/Oregon Grope IF tr■ C45) Pious muAWmughus /MughoMoe 15' 0 Prunus lusllanln /PortugalLaurel 24' LightingSchedule 71 It Parking Area Light Fixture - cutoff type 400 WA painted steel pole. Mounting height approxima footcandle) Pedestrian Lighting - cutoff type 400 Watt HPS steel pole. Mounting height approximately 301 V ; !2 j / / / / / /,' ///////////77/77-7/ �` tm ► moo`tea. . 1111 ,11111 1 'I ! ! i II .1 ; ' J„ ,..J, I.,,ii.�.j..l,� i,l ,I,J..,!k j '1' i 111 11111 1!i11I, 1 u 5' !. s'- — l 11011MERLAIM11111111111151111ft �) 1 ,,,i IIII cM'C. 5'p!J✓.L,.L 1.,Iti!11r1.1 it 011, • It .000 iu Puget Power Parking (144 Stalls) • st " - twttiwauu�au Puget Power 1 t ." /7 KC. CGl�9MC.G et.,;cJO �T s. g'' :'4'f X pQ�wVJ ..oOR18111(6111asm li ii ' '1 i llill ?1 � ' I ._I.1j jl,► i 4-' 11• -f- . �I I ent, Co. nth Loschky Marquardt & Nesholm 5x11 N....net 11..11.11n. • Milra-,amsultink Atelier Suite 211 • 1114 2 _ 2307 First Ar•u. . r 43 dr Associates g `.- s07 Country Club Ilrir. Storm Drainage Swale -1$'tti 1111 1$i s Gt7' 1'tttH'i' Ji. South Parking Area (743 Stalls) 7 v h •0 1, 4. 4- .0 n ,..t T Ana. 5, /115 a\-\\7\ �A 7//// ///////777/7 -7T7% 777 • Plant'Schedule C4Inndrus dmtrtens /Incense Cedar Cralacgus phaennpyrum /Washing on Thom LIquldambar atyracif ua /Swec,gum Populist nlgra'ltallca' /Lombardy Poplar la) Plnus nigra /Mntrtan Pine Rhus glabra/Smooth Sumac Euonymus Mali ccmp•cta /Winged Euonymui r t?2e0 Euonymus (ortunel 'Colorata /Purple Leaf Winter Creeper Mahonlaaqulfollum /OregonGrape C"'GY Pins mugho mughus /Mugho line Qs Prunus lusltanlca /Portugal Laurel Lighting Schedule Z 6' -T ht., B&B l -3/4' cal., 8'- 10'ht., B &B 3' cal., 14' -16' ht. 2' cal., 14' -16' ht., B&B or BR 8'-10' ht., B &B 5'-6' ht., 3.5 stems with lateral branching, B&B 15'-18' hl. & tp., • max. 36' o.c. Irtangular spacing 4' pot O 24' o.c. triangular spacing 18' -21' ht. 0 max. 36' oc. triangular spacing 15' -18' ht. & sp. 24' ht. & sp. Parking Area Light Fixture - cutoff type 400 Walt HPS luminaire on painted steel pole. Mounting height approximately 35 feet. (Min. 1 footcandle) Pedestrian Lighting - cutoff type 400 Watt HI'S luminaire on painted steel pole. Mounting height approximately 30 feet. Prunus laut eracus 'Otto I.uyken / Otto Luyken Laurel Pyracantha moh ve /NCN Tcmatrocmla gymnanthera /NCN Iles crenata concern'/ Convex Leaf Japanese Hnlly Rosa rugosa /Ramanaa Rae Viburnum plialum tomentosum Dmtblcfile Viburnum Hedera helix /English Ivy Seeded Lawn Mem Ml Plan and Parking Area Planter shall be serviced with aufomatk Irrigation system 10-12 ht. /sp., • 36' triangular spacing 21' -24' ht. /tp., • 36' o.c. triangular spacing 18' -21' ht. & sp. • 36' o.c. triangular sparing 15' -18' hi. • 30' o.c. triangular spacing 12' -15' hL /ip., 3 stems. min. BR or mni. O 48' oc. triangular spacing 32' -42' ht. & sp., B&B 1 gal. mni • 30' triangular sparing Caen Puget Power Parking /South (144 Stalls) Puget Power $.1 l l I � i I J -' � , t t ;.,......j.1,.... i 1 foIt ANDOV3T5E-ARrifh. ." t" Exhibition Facility. 5GO.aeo a..4 .•% - it 4 Swale -J ' ! ' I .......... I I .. I . . . . ... nv l r t South Parking Area (743 Stalls) AP 7 7 A- c4-.1. 4444 r7 G� • :Scale 1" = 50' -0 "; 0 T l&14-t:- S rl ' • 1 • 1M S. 5. if 13 5 • k •••aYA-•."'s,,1 s7itmar naem0 SA Puget Power Parking/North (195 Stalls) Section @ orth Union Pacific Railroad Atarliisidiebs ciav ••••■•■ •,11:111 11111111T .13'•0"'"' 1 1 • 1 , . •:i.\ ,,,, , .1 !; ; . 111-1-11- 1 1 I I 1 1 1 • L. .4. -1.1.1......4•4•,....1.1••••••..1•1•1•-•••••••• 1 • . • i • 1 1 i . -'7V'""<•••^•••■•••••••... -1 • •‘• • •,•• ( • 1111 1111; , 1 1 Storm Drainage Swale . — - - - - - - — - Burlington Northern Railroad • For Plant McLeod Development. Co. LoschIcy Marquardt & Nesholm Miles Consulting 213Lake Street South 501 Norton Building 11111.111UL • Suite 211 • Bldg, Atelier s 43 & Associates 2307 First Avenue sirs 11111.711 807 Cnu•try Club Drirr YAI•1m• WA WIWI I hit inn F a oil.; + '17 •••••••. 4.1 r7Pr /••••011•0•(9.4./0" 4/6047..TANCH.a0 2 11 #77 709C073400 IN1 to g 0--$5 --•• -4 Staeliug" sc. ing/North .ac.40.4.19a ,3••wi'S .Section @ orth Parking Area ee•-••••••/..—de .P". 5, O• 405 Si /Readerboard , . • • , , I. ;.. J. I sl • • • Leilt A• 1.• • 'N. ....,11.1 . ii::,, 1 1 , I ...., , , .........4 ____ ____,,„. ___p p ", I . I ; ; ; " I ; ; ' , .. ; ' '' ' " . 1 i ' 1 . ■ 1 1 . I '' 1 ' . 1 -..—:.1 , ! : .• 4-, i I I 1 • I . I I • I : I I . , i , . 1 ' ! .1,..L.. 1 ..1 ...1,.. 1 —..-1... I,..i.. I, 1,,I..1 . i . 1,.. , , , , , , . ...... J . . 1 . A. isk,..,+.4.1k.1.3,,,..I. .11..1_1. J . J .I„ „ • . ,k,I,J , 4 . I . itt1 ,:••■••••••• :. • ..• : . • •••••• .......... ,,, .•• • •L• •• • • • l• • h I Ji 1 , , • snh4A/ •‘,.."■• ••••••••• " .• . ,••••• ••••• ,,,,,,,,,,,,, • ••• • ••• • •••••••re,■•••••;,Ls....L • , ,, ."r-t.• Ili{ 14M1161I-:'1 L Iill hill '''''''''''''' " • ' ; ''''' • ' • • I , ; i I 1 1 • 1 I For Plant Schedule/See South Parking Area Plan evoces1 North Parking Area (796 Stalls) Scale: 1" 50-0" 20 5o 100 North entipnt STATE OF • WASHINGTON • REGISTERED LANDSCAPE ARCHTEC ;... LEHyht Wncets 1 • 1 • - • • 1 • oia ■aa pprriaw F f 11 a v Z'•PIr • 11I •,t•$ r g) z C 6 II '+n a•r.1 •• tur peoiiteg ulatnioN uo3 tNz N far ROW L r 0 1 Sande* a r .. hline F 9 ii � a 1' wF Uf g: E E Mr fir TV MILES CONSULTING (208) 451 -2138 SUITE 211 - BLDG 2 300 - 120th AVE. N.E. BELLEVUE, WA 98005 February 12, 1993 Denni Shefrin City of Tukwila Planning Department 6300 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 RE: Northwest Exhibition Facility McLeod Development Project Dear Denni, FEB ! E $'M..,,, I have reviewed my written notes, correspondence, and other data as relates to the submittal and approval of the McLeod Development proposal to develop the Exhibition Facility in tukwila. The files indicate that Mr. McLeod and myself first met in late February of 1989 to explore the possibility of organizing the proposed Exhibition Facility. Late March of that year we explored the probable requirements of developing such a facility on the M -1 zone property via over the counter discussions with various members from the City of Tukwila Planning Department. We then formally submitted a pre - application package on June 15, 1989. The pre - application meeting was conducted on June 29, 1989 where the City of Tukwila provided various data which would be required to accomplish the project. It was determined at that time that the project would be sited in the M -1 zoning. At that time it was discovered by McLeod that the parking requirements set by the City of Tukwila land use code were inconsistent within themselves, as well as similar facilities of like use. McLeod spent the remainder of 1989 and early 1990 assembling the project land via purchase, leases, and other agreements. By mid 1990, the project concept was developed and the sire layout and building schematic plans produced. Prepared to submit the project for review, McLeod was advised that the City had conducted a sensitive area review and that part of the McLeod property was in Woodland Area #12. At the same time, McLeod was advised that the City was also preparing a Sensitive Area Ordinance which would place some restrictions on the property. This Ordinance was to be adopted prior to December, 1990. McLeod prepared for an Environmental Checklist Submittal in September, 1990. The specific date being September 10, 1990 The Checklist suggested a building of approximately 230,000 square feet, while under item 11 advising that an attachment be consulted for the specifics. The detail project specifics sheet (attachment #1) listed a gross building area of 233,640 square feet providing 210,000 square feet of display area. The project would develop approximately 23 acres and park 2100 vehicles. The City did not adopt the Sensitive Area Ordinance on a timely fashion, thus parts of the review of the McLeod project could not be completely evaluated and a determination of no- significance issues. There was also a re -zone necessary to render a portion of the property capable of accommodating the proposed project. For several months the project waited while McLeod studied Tukwila as a market place for trade and consumer shows. The City continued to request pieces of information related to the site, the business, wetlands mitigation, traffic, and parking. The project was published on august 6, 1991 with its significance impacts and potential mitigations determined and listed. The City of Renton protested the mitigation measure, requesting further information on how traffic affected the City of Renton. They also requested a look at land use, thinking the entire 23 acres was being re- zoned, as well as suggesting storm water runoff should be reviewed. In turn, the City of Tukwila requested from McLeod additional traffic data and analysis. The remaining items being resolved by the City and McLeod staffs. When preparing to submit additional traffic data, McLeod requested a better understanding of the parking requirements and how the determination related to either gross building area or net building area. Realizing that there was potential need for about 16,000 square feet of warehousing and storage needed to support a potential show decoration operation within the building and not getting what we believed to be a safe answer to the parking question, we added 16,000 square feet to the 233,640 to conclude a 250,000 square foot gross building housing a specific show business. The traffic analysis accomplished by TSI included the larger area. Where the new DNS publication and data did not include this I cannot advise. We did, however, provide data and details that a 250,000 square foot gross building would be constructed, determined traffic mitigation on shows that would probably have a total attendance of 900,000 per year which used a net area of 210,000 square feet of display space and would be parked in 2100 parking spaces. Various matters and issues relating to this described project were determined and Mitigated DNS republished in October, 1991. This determination wa not protested and became the basis of the McLeod Exhibition Facility. With the issue of a Mitigated DNS, McLeod moved into Design Development drawings and preparation for a Board of Architectural Review submittal. Interest grew in the project as various show promoters learned of the pending facility. McLeod became convinced that a larger facility was needed. Details of this larger facility were released in the March 24, 1992 submittal of the Design Review Application. this submittal was further refined and re- submitted June 24, 1992. With it was the submittal of an additional SEPA Checklist and Traffic Study. The project increase in size to a gross building area of 316,000 square feet, having a net area of 245,000 square foot of display space. A total of 2300 parking spaces were proposed, a part of the spaces being north of 1 -405. The Architectural Review process bogged down with understanding and intent of the actual requirements seeming to be loosely defined. During the re- thinking process, McLeod attempted to begin to secure commitments from the larger users. A conclusion was made during these negotiations that certain shows would probably remain at other locations. As McLeod re- thought the building style and appearance, the floor plan readjusted to meet the need of the more probable show producers. At that time a decision was made to submit a facilities plan which did not go over the 250,000 gross square feet studied previously, which contained a net display area of Tess than 210,000 square feet. After meeting with Public Works, a decision wa also made to re -look at traffic impacts for a small attendance. This data, as well as those details of the facility having less area and parking in the project approved for construction in the SEPA consideration issued on October 29, 1992, is being submitted for Board of Architectural Review. We believe the Facility now proposed is Tess that or equal to that project submitted and approved. We can understand a need to be clear on the project, but we do not believe we should be unnecessarily exposed to public review, as there is no real change other than in appearance. Please do not hesitate in contacting me to discuss the various project elements. There have been no Tess than 6 people each from Planning and Public Works involved in this project. on Miles Miles Consulting cc McLeod • McLeod Development, Co. • 213 lake Street South, Kirkland, WA 98033 (206) 822 -4114 Pax: (206) 827 -9990 City of Tukwila Alan Doerschel, Finance Jirector 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA. 98188 RECEIVED FEB 1 61993 DEVELOPMENT February 9, 1993 Dear Alan,• At the September 2nd meeting with the City of Tukwila, one of the requests from the City of Tukwila was a "position letter" explaining the Expo Center project, and outlining the potential economic benefits to the city and community. This would be the first step in negotiating the Developer Agreement for this project.. The project is an Exhibit and Trade Center that is designed specifically for the Consumer and Trade Show industry. Consumer Shows include Home Shows, Boat Show, Flower and Garden Shows, Sportsman Shows, Antique Shows, etc., and Trade Shows include Gift Shows, Restaurant Shows, Fish Expo, and Product Shows for various industries. Other facilities in our region attempt to meet the industry needs, but are unable to so because of priority commitments to Sports Franchises (Coliseum & Kingdome) or conventions (Washington State Convention Center.) I might add that facility management at these other facilities'do an excellent job accommodating what shows they can. These facilities are not designed for this industry, and once the Expo Center is built it will be the superior venue for Consumer and Trade Shows. Because this proposed facility will fulfill a demand not currently being met, it will be recognized as a compliment to the existing public assembly facilities in our region. It is projected at stabilized occupancy, the annual attendance is between 650,000 and 700,000 people. Between 280,000 and 350,000 cars will be parked annually. The facility will be in use between 270 and 320 days per year. (including move -in and move -out days, and smaller meetings) Active event days are approximately 170 days. ECONOMIC PICTURE Consumer Shows: The economic impact of Consumer and Trade Shows to the community will vary of course, depending on the event. For example; a Consumer Show attendee may not use a hotel, but they may buy products at the show, dine at a local restaurant, or shop at Southcenter before or after the event. But then, a larger regional Consumer show will generate great hotel demand. A consumer show that we believe will use the Expo Center conducted a survey at their 1992. show which revealed that 4200 hotel room nights were used for the show by participants and attendees. Industry Associations have done economic impact studies of various Consumer Shows. Industry statistics are available to refine an economic impact study and make it event or facility specific. For the sake of developing a general understanding, I looked at economic impact studies conducted by the'National Association of Exposition Managers, and the National Association of Consumer Shows. As one can see by reviewing* the studies, the economic impact can vary depending on the event. The study conducted at the Cincinnati Sports, Travel, and Boat Show by Xavier University concluded that per family (2.6 people) economic impact range was $494.00 to $836.00. The per attendee range,therefore, is $188.00 to $319.00. The Cleveland Home and Flower Show and Minnesota Home and Garden Show studies show a $26.25 to $51.82 range per attendee. These numbers exclude the exhibitor expenditures which at the Minnesota Show totaled $651,000.00. These two studies were not as extensive as the Xavier University study. The NACS data shows the average expenditures per group (2.3 people) is $87.84 or $38.00 per attendee. This again, does not include the exhibitor expenditures of $2208.00 per exhibitor or show management expenditures which can for large events can exceed $1,000,000.00. The per attendee economic impact range is from $26.25 (excluding exhibitor and show management expenditures) to $319.00 (Xavier University Study) I took a NACS worksheet for approximating economic impact of Consumer Shows, and inserted numbers from a typical Northwest Consumer Show, and calculated the per attendee economic impact at $99.13. For estimating purposes within this letter, it seems reasonable to use a per attendee economic impact of $40.00. This excludes exhibitor expenditures which is addressed under Trade Shows. -2-- Trade Shows: An•out of state Trade Show delegate will not only buy products at the show, but will also dine at local restaurants, use hotels, use local transportation, and shop at local retail stores. I have enclosed a chart provided by the International Association of Convention and Visitor Bureaus identifying the spending generated per out of state delegate for Trade Shows at $977.26. The NACS Study shows the average Consumer Show exhibitor expenditures are $2208.00 Assuming 2 people per exhibit booth would equal $1104.00 of expenditures per exhibit booth person. In an attempt to develop an understanding of the economic impact of this facility to the city and community, I have taken the projected number of attendees at 700,000, and say 90% or 630,000 are Consumer Show attendees, and 10% or 70,000 are out of state Trade Show .delegates and Consumer and Trade Show exhibitors, then the economic impact is. as follows: 630,000 x $ 40.00 = $ 25,200,000 70,000 x $977.00 = $ 68,390,000 $ 93,590,000 of economic impact per year This Expo Center project is complimentary and unique to the area, and will generate substantial economic benefit to the nearby hotels, restaurants, and retail shopping stores. Revenue Projections: 1. Entertainment Tax 700,000 attendees x $6.00 x .05% = $210,000•.00 City portion is 2. Property Tax (Increase) $20,000,000 x Levy rate 11.49834 = $229,966.00 City portion is approximately 3. Sales Tax. Assuming 50% of the $93,590,000 economic impact is within the City of Tukwila and sales tax applies to 60% of that amount; $28,077,000 x .082 = $2,302,314.00 City portion is -3- $210,000 $ 60,000 $238,654 4. Contract servicing and Food Service are two act- ivities that occur in the facility where sales tax is applicable. • Estimated revenue is $3,000,000 to $3,600,000. Sales Tax on $3,000,000 is $246,000. City portion is 5. Business activity that occurs at the various shows within the center. An example is, Collector Car Auctions can generate $3,000,000 in annual sales with retail sales tax exceeding $100,000 annually. City portion would be approx- imately $10,000. More specific studies are re- quired to determine potential from other shows. We say the range is from $40,000 to $100,000 for all events. • We estimate City portion is $ 25,500 $ 40,000 6. Storm Drainage (Annual) $ 7,500 Water (Annual) $ 3,800 Sewer (Annual) $ 2,800 7. Total projected Annual Revenue to the City of Tukwila $588,254 Outlined below is an updated list of development issues relating to the.Expo Center project and their estimated costs. 1. Construct Strander road extension to site 2. Construct 2 lane U.P.R.R. Uundercrossing at • Strander Blvd. $160,000 $300,000 3. City purchase a portion of property north of freeway for future parking lot $600,000 4. Construct South 158th St. improvements to site 5. Traffic Impact Fees: Tukwila Renton $280,000 $344,000 $200,000 6. City contribute that portion of the cost of storm drainage LID over the credits given from construction and land contribution $ ? -4- 2 7. Storm drainage to LID $ 20,000 8.• Construct 48" storm drainage under B.N.R.R. (25 %) $75,000 9. Extend adequate water to site for project $90,000 10. Construct public pedestrian trail on Puget $40,000 11. Sewer Stub $10,000 12. City purchase rightaway across South parking lot for future Strander extension $ 36,000 Power property This location has all the key ingredients for a quality and successful Expo Center, centrally located in our region, complimentary to the surrounding area, excellent access, freeway exposure, close to the airport, and ndarby quality hotels. Once in operation it can also accommodate convention needs, large meetings, and gala events for the Tukwila area. Our Pacific Northwest region will now be able to compete for medium sized National and International Trade Shows, therefore, bringing in additional economic imput to the community and region. With the City of Tukwila's support we look forward to bringing this project on line for a Fall 1994 Grand Opening. After your review, please call so we can proceed with the Developer Agreement. cc: Denni Shefrin Ross Ernst f moo, o f F ,m N °o a N F CC R Ali/ ° A ° G RcA M Q A G J O p, 2 M Cb G1 719 Indiana Avenue • Indianapolis, Indiana 46202 • Telephone (317) NET -NAEM (638 -6236) • Fax (317) 687 -0017 E #136 Summary of 1989 Cleveland Home & Flower Show Economic Impact Study Copyright © Exhibit Surveys, Inc. 7 Hendrickson Avenue Red Bank, NJ 07701 Funded by The Cleveland Home and Flower Show & The National Association of Exposition Managers to benefit the industry. Consumer expositions have acknowledged that because of the relatively local and regional draw of their audiences, they do not impact the economypf the city in which they are held in the same way as those trade expositions which draw at least part of their audience from out- side the region of the city. Traditionally, economic impact of expositions has been measured in terms of hotel room usage. Based on this standard of measurement most consumer expositions would be consid- ered to have minimal economic impact upon a city. However, consumer exposition managers have continually made the point that their shows bring many visitors from the suburbs and surrounding communities to the "downtown" area of a city and that these visitors contribute to the economy of the city. The main objective of this study, therefore, was to determine the dollar volume impact that the 1989 Cleveland Home & Flower Show had on the city of Cleveland, Ohio. More specifi- cally, the intent of the study was to determine the amounts attributable to attendees, exhib- itors, show contractors, and show management. Detailed expenditure breakdowns were ob- tained for each group analyzed. A summary of the results is presented here in this article. A secondary objective of the attendee portion of the study was to obtain information about attendee demographics, products they were interested in seeing and planning to buy (including anticipated purchases), previous show attendance, hours spent at the show, how attendees learned about the show, rating of various features of the show, and other products or services they would like to see in future shows. These figures indicate, for example, that an estimated total of about $563,300 in expenditures was made by exhibitors in Cleveland. Another $125,300 was estimated to have been paid in commissions for sales made at the show to Cleveland residents who worked in the exhibits. ( Therefore, the total impact on the economy of Cleveland by the 346 exhibitors was about $688,600. D.111 r lim f Ex.-n• r M. 1 . h.w 11. w M.n • -m n land: The third phase of this study involved contacting show management and the individual show contractors to measure their economic impact upon Cleveland. Detailed expenditure forms were sent to show management and all show contractors. Show management expenditures and income impacting Cleveland totaled $2,896,300. Listed below is a description of the catego- ries included in this figure: Hall rental and related expenses Hotels and meals for staff during show Other staff expenditures Wages for temporary personnel Wages /salaries of show staff residing in Cleveland (amortized based on amount of time spent at show) Food and beverage service for staff at show site and for special functions Local 'advertising and promotion (Cleveland only) • Tax on .ticket receipts Net income from ticket sales, space sales, sporisorships (show management is Cleveland based) Cost of services provided to show management by Convention Center and contractors that have not been included in contractor total below All other miscellaneous show expenses directly benefiting Cleveland The total income and expenditures from contractors and sponsors directly benefiting Cleve- land totaled $665,900. This figure can be considered conservative because not all contractors returned their forms. Listed below is a description of categories included in show contractor figure: For Contractors Located Within Cleveland City Limits: Total income from servi::es provided to exhibitors Total income from services provided to show management Other income as a result of Cleveland Home & Flower Show For Contractors Not Located Within Cleveland City Limits: Amount spent on hotels and meals in Cleveland by their personnel while working at the show Amount spent on parking, rental cars, local transportation and other company per- sonnel expenditures within the Cleveland city limits while working at show Amount spent on wages and salaries of their personnel who reside in the city of Cleveland (amortized based on time spent on show) Amount spent on wages for labor and any other temporary personnel used at show who reside in city of Cleveland Airfare for personnel who worked at show (20% amortized to Cleveland) Other show- related expenditures that directly benefit Cleveland Listed below is the percentage of the audience planning to buy eh,n of the types of products and services measured: Plants/Horticultural Products Professional Landscaping/Lawn Maintenance Service New Home Purchase Home Improvement/Remodeling (Net): Room Addition . Remodel Existing Structure Siding/Roofing/Insulation Fence/Decking Heating/Air Conditioning Other Improvement Major Appliances Arts & Crafts Other/Not Specified Plan to Buy. % 45.9 14.2 4.6 35.0 3.0 9.3 5.1 7.7 4.3 9.8 6.7 22.1 4.0 As further evidence of the high quality of the audience, a projected total of over $3 million in purchases was made at the show from all exhibitors and another $373.4 million is projected in anticipated purchases over the next twelve months for the above types of products and serv- ices. As we stated earlier, the projected purchases made at the show by non - residents from Cleve- land based exhibitors was about $317,100 of this $3 million figure . Projected anticipated purchases in the next 12 months by non- residents from Cleveland based exhibitors is about $54.6 million of the $373.4 million total. While the $317,100 in actual purchases made at the show was considered direct economic impact, the $54.6 million cannot be considered impact. however, at least some of this $54.6 million could impact the economy of Cleveland assum- ing the purchases do take place and assuming the show was the reason for buying. Further post -show study would be required to determine if the anticipated purchases were actually realized and to determine what portion of these purchases were made as a direct result of the show. Experience tells us that buying plans are a good predictor of actual purchases and that shows have a strong influence on purchases made. The high audience quality in terms of purchases and buying plans is consistent with the high levels of household income of attendees. We found that 24.5% of the respondents have house- hold incomes of $35,000 to $49,999, and 25.4% have household incomes of $50,000 or more. About 7.5% have incomes of $75,000 or more . . Eighty -six percent of the respondents are homeowners. The respondents were evenly distrib- uted with respect to age with the average age being 47. The geographical distribution of the audience is regional which is typical for a consumer exposition . A total of 94.6% of the attendees are from Ohio. However, 26.4% of the attendees came from outside the immediate and surrounding counties of Cuyahoga, Lake, Geauga, Portage, Summit, Medina, and Lorain. A total of 2.7% came from Pennsylvania, 0.2% from New York, and 0.6% from Canada . xpenditures � TABLE 1 Dollar Volume of Expenditures/Purchases in Cleveland Made by Attendees Average Projected Projected Per Total Total Respondent All Attendees Non - Residents Food and Beverage $9.75 $706,300 $614,500 Lodging 1.04 97,600 97,600 Gasoline and Other Auto Expenses .88 67,700 55,900 Parking 2.28 156,800 138,100 Local Transportation .56 43,300 41,300 Shopping in Retail Stores 4.27 357,900 329,800 Entertainment . 1.52 112,700 110,000 Rental Cars - - Airfare' .14' 14,100 14,100 All Other Miscellaneous Expenses ,i1 70.400 17.500 TOTAL EXPENDITURES $21.21 $1,626,800 $1,418,800 Purchases from Cleveland Exhibitors $5.04 $372.300 $317.100 TOTAL EXPENDITURES & $26.25 $1,999,100 $1,735,900 PURCHASES (a) Represents only 20% of total airfare. This percentage was arbitrarily determined to be the portion of total airfare that would impact Cleveland. IKFORM-A-GRAVA 0 .-. c,, 0 (0 719 Indiana Avenue • Indianapolis, Indiana 46202 Telephone (317) NET-NAEM (638-6236) • Fax (317) 687-0017 *140 Summary of 1990 Minnesota Home & Garden Show Economic Impact Study Copyright ©1990 Exhibit Surveys, Inc. , 7 Hendrickson Avenue Red Bank, NJ 07701 Funded by The Trade Shows, Inc. & The National Association of Exposition Managers Foundation to benefit the industry: Consumer exposition managers have acknowledged that a consumer exposition, which has a local and regional audience, will impact the economy of the city in which it is held differently than a trade exposition, which draws a portion of its audience from outside of the city. Traditionally, the economic impact of expositions have been measured in terms of hotel room usage. Based on this standard of measurement, most consumer expositions would be consid- ered to have minimal economic impact upon a city. Consumer exposition managers, however, have continually pointed out that their shows bring many visitors from the suburbs and sur- rounding communities to the "downtown" area of a city. These visitors, they maintain, con- tribute to the economy of the city. The main objective of this study was to determine the dollar volume impact that the 1990 Minnesota Home and Garden Show had on the economy of the Twin Cities - Minneapolis and Saint Paul, Minnesota. The specific intent of the study was to determine the dollar volumes attributable to attendees, exhibitors, show contractors, and show management. Detailed break- downs of income and expenditures were obtained for each group analyzed. A summary of the results is presented in this article. A secondary objective of the attendee portion of the study was to obtain information about attendee demographics, attendance at previous shows, hours spent at the show, product inter- est and buying plans, advertising recall, ratings of the show's entertainment value, and ratings of various features affecting future attendance . total $643,900 in projecte.8 "purchases. Overall, non - residents contributed $1,088,700 (80 %) of the total $1,357,500 in projected expenditures and purchases made by all attendees. Dollar Volume of Expenditures Made injhe TwinLeities by Exhibitors; Table C summarizes the expenditures made in the Twin Cities by exhibitors. The first column gives the average expenditure per responding exhibitor and the second column gives projec- tions of the total expenditures for all 515 exhibitors. These figures indicate, for example, that a projected total of $367,700 in expenditures were made by exhibitors in the Twin Cities. Another $283,300 was estimated to have been paid in commissions for sales made at the show to Twin Cities residents who worked in the exhibits. Therefore, the total impact on the economy of the Twin Cities by the 515 exhibitors was $651,000. In addition to paid commissions, we also calculated projections of commissions for sales exhibitors were reasonably sure of making within the next 12 months. As a result of the show, exhibitors anticipated paying a total of $2,814,500 in commissions. Of this amount, a pro- jected total of $2,332,400 (83 %) in commissions would be paid to booth personnel residing in the Twin Cities. • • „ • .•.t• 1./.•• , ,' . , 10 • •I! . • t • 1 • Management: The third phase of this study involved contacting show management and the individual show contractors to measure their impact upon the economy of the Twin Cities. Forms were sent to show management and the individual contractors for their income and expenditures. Trade Shows, Inc., management for the 1990 Minnesota Home and Garden Show, is located in Minnetonka, Minnesota. Since show management is not located in the Twin Cities, no revenue received from exhibit space or ticket sales directly impacts the Twin Cities economy. The Twin Cities economy, however, does benefit from all payments made to individuals or companies located in the Twin Cities for expenses incurred by management in connection with the show. Trade Shows, Inc. made a total of $546,775 in such payments. Listed below are the categories of expenses included in this figure: Hall Rental Twin Cities Facility Tax Local Advertising and Promotion (Twin Cities Only) Show Contractor Services Wages for Temporary Personnel In addition, this figure covered the following show staff expenses: Hotels and Meals Parking, Rental Cars, and Local Transportation Additional Food and Beverage Amortized Wages for Staff Residing in the Twin Cities 20% of the Total Airfare to the Twin Cities for Non -Local Staff Audience Quality and Acvity: A secondary objective of this study was to obtain information about attendee demographics, audience quality, and audience activity. In general it can be concluded that the quality of the audience was good. Over one -third (34.5 %) of the attendees purchased products at the show and 54.3% were planning to buy one or more products in the next twelve months. Listed below are the percentages of the attendees planning to buy each of the types of prod - ucts•and services measured: New Home Purchase Home Improvement/Remodeling (Net): Room Addition 2.1 Remodel Existing Structure 3.3 Siding/Roofing/Insulation 4.2 Kitchen 12.1 Bathroom 9.7 Windows or Doors 10.8 Fence/Decking/Gazebo 5.8 Heating/Air Conditioning 3.7 Interior Design 4.3 Other Improvements 6.9 Professional Landscaping/Lawn Service Major Appliances Arts & Crafts Lawn and Garden Equipment Indoor Furniture Fireplace/Wood Stove All Other Mentions Plan to Buy. % 6.6 40.4 4.5 4.3 1.5 5.5 2.2 3.0 0.9 As further evidence of the high quality of the audience, a projected total of $942,000 in purchases were made at the show from all exhibitors and over $324.7 million is projected in anticipated purchases over the next twelve months for the above types of products and ser- vices. As we stated earlier, the projected purchases made at the show by nonresidents from Twin Cities based exhibitors was $513,700 of this $942,000 figure. Projected anticipated purchases in the next 12 months by non - residents from Twin Cities based exhibitors is over $175 million of the $324.7 million total. While the $513,700 in actual purchases made at the show can be considered direct economic impact, the $175 million cannot be considered impact. However, at least some of this $175 million could impact the economy of the Twin Cities assuming the purchases do take place and assuming the show was the reason for buying. Further post -show study would be required to determine what portion of the anticipated purchases were actually realized and to determine if these purchases were made as a direct result of the show. Attendees planning to buy new homes were responsible for over $227.3 million (70 %) of the projected $324.7 million in anticipated purchases. Nonetheless, the dollar volume for antici- pated purchases of all other products and services measured was substantial. Attendees not TABLE A. Dollar Volume of Expenditures/Purchases in the Twin Cities Made by All Attendees Wed. to Fri. Average Per Expenditures Respondent Food & Beverage $ Lodging Gas & Other Auto Expense Parking Local Transportation Twin Cities Shopping Twin Cities Entertainment Rental Cars Airfare (x.20) Misc. Expenses Sat. & Sun. Average Per Projection Respondent PrQjection 7.03 $ 95,031 $ 5.78 $ 139,229 1.41 19,060 .38 9,153 3.43 46,367 2.62 63,111 3.49 47,178 3.52 84,790 .07 946 .04. 963 4.27 57,722 2.66 64,074 1.81 24,468 .55 13,248 .48 6,489 - - - .13a 3,131 ,45. 6.083 1,35. 32.519 •Total. Expenditures $22.44 Purchases from Twin Cities Exhibitors $1 8.18. Total Expenditures & Purchases $40.62 $303,344 $17.03 $410,218 $245.757 $16.53 $398,175 $549,101 $33.56 $808,393 Total Projection All Attendees $ 234,300 28,200 109,500 132,000 1,900 121,800 37,700 . 6,500 3,100. 38.600 $713,600 $64 3.900 $1,357,500 a) Represents only 20% of total airfare. This percentage was arbitrarily determined to be the portion of total airfare that would impact the Twin Cities. TABLE C Dollar Volume of Expenditures in the Twin Cities Made by Exhibitors Average Projected Expenditures/ per Total Commissions Re,jpondent All Exhibitors. Twin Cities Lodginga $ 27 $ 13,900 Food & Beverage 94 48,400 Entertainment 45 23,200 Rental Car 7 3,600 Gas and Auto 49 25,200 Airfare (x .20) 4 b 2,100 Unanticipated Expenditures 12 6,200 Incidental /Misc. 74 38,100 Exhibit Related: Show Services . c c Temporary Help 24 12,400 Local Advertising 256 131,800 ' Other 1 62.800 Total Expenditures $ 714 Sales Commissions Paid to Twin Cities Residents d Total Expenditures Plus Commissions $367,700 0 $283.300 $1,264 $651,000 a ) Total lodging expenses for all exhibitors including those staying outside of the Twin Cities was projected at $15,500. b) Represents only 20% of total airfare. This percentage was arbitrarily determined to be the portion of total airfare that would impact the Twin Cities. c) Show services expenditures by exhibitors in the Twin Cities are included in the show contractor figures. Total show services costs for all exhibitors (utilities, labor, drayage, etc.) was projected at $157,600. This figure does not include exhibit space rental. d) Total sales commissions paid as a result of sales made at the show was projected at $340,900 for all exhibitors. OMAGM #1144 719 Indiana Avenue • Indianapolis, India! a 46202 • Telephone (317) NET -NAEM (638 -6236) • Fax (317) 687 -0017 The Economic Impact of the 1990 Cincinnati Sports, Travel & Boat Show Produced by: Has is Productions, Inc., Cincinnati, Ohio This study was conducted by: David R. Weinberg, Ph.D. . and Harold L. Bryant, Ph.D. Department of Economics and Industrial Relations Xavier University Cincinnati, OH This study was commissioned, and reprinting authority granted by: Taft, Stettinius & Hollister Attorneys at Law Cincinnati, OH The 1990 Cincinnati Sports, Travel and Boat Show, which was held from January 20 through January 28 in the Albert B. Sabin Convention Center in Cincinnati was a complex multi - product show that occupied most of all three floors of the Convention Center. There were a total of 400 exhibitors, 270 of whom came from outside the Cincinnati Region,and 130 of whom came from inside the region. The type of non -local exhibitor was quite different than the type of local exhibitor. The local exhibitors were composed of a fairly even mix of boat dealers and organizations that were not selling any products, including radio stations and charitable and governmental organizations. There were somewhat fewer fitness equipment dealers and resorts. There were less than ten RV dealers, financial institutions, wine companies, and fishing suppliers; and 19 that were scattered around. While the products were mixed, the boat dealers and financial institutions accounted for the overwhelming majority of the economic activity. 1 5.) The show redirects Iocaresidents away from incidental spending while b... of town to spending those dollars locally. Had this show not occurred, some local residents would have gone out of town to other shows and would have stayed in hotel rooms, eaten in non -local restaurants and purchased goods from non -local retailers. But because of the show this expenditure stayed in Cincinnati. 6.) Exhibitors from out of town purchased goods in Cincinnati for business purposes. These included employing Cincinnatians at the center, purchasing supplies and utilities, and paying their rent for using the convention space. 7.) Exhibitors from out of town also had incidental expenses of staying in Cincinnati. These included hotel rooms, restaurant meals and retail purchases. 8.) The manufacturers of several of the items that were exhibited at the show sent representatives who assisted the ' dealers. These representatives spent money in Cincinnati hotels, restaurants, and retail facilities. 9.) Finally, some spending that otherwise would have been spent in Cincinnati was diverted to outside the area when Cincinnatians purchased goods and services that were sold by non -local dealers. This assumes that had the show not occurred, the items would have been purchased locally. This creates a net subtraction to economic activity in the Cincinnati area. in addition to these economic impacts there arc a few impacts that are important, but we have not devised a way to accurately quantify them. First, there are cost savings to dealers from being able to sell goods at the show rather than having to rely on their normal selling practices. Second, there are gains in convenience to customers of having the opportunity to shop for goods at the show rather than having to rely on their normal, more cumbersome shopping patterns. In the case of boats, there is a seasonal gain to both customers and dealers of having a Winter market. Third, there are benefits to the center of having a regular customer who reliably rents the convention center at the same time of year each year. 1.) Survey Methodology Our non -local customer surveys were conducted by telephone ten days to two weeks following the show. Three hundred interviews were conducted by randomly selecting names from a list of about 800 non -local show attendees who agreed to being called for an interview after they returned home. These people were contacted by MRS personnel who were stationed around exits to the first floor of the convention center and some of whom circulated around the floors. To compensate for contacting an inappropriately high number of peop:e some days and an inappropriately low number other days of the show, we re-weighted our data to be in line with the number of non -local customers present each day. The local customers were surveyed on the floor by the same MRS personnel that contacted non -local customers. They asked them no more than eight questions. They conducted 654 interviews of this group. MRS sent the show exhibitors mail questionnaires about three weeks after the show. A questionnaire that was primarily concerned with sales was sent to local exhibitors. A questionnaire that was concerned partially with sales and partly with exhibitor expenditures in the Cincinnati area was sent to non -local exhibitors. Exhibitors returned them anywhere from three weeks to twelve weeks later. One hundred and thirty -seven out of 270, or 51% of non -local exhibitors returned the question- naires. Sixty -two out of 130. or 48 percent of local exhibitors returned their surveys. However, we personally interviewed another bank and eleven more boat dealers. As a result, we surveyed all but two of the boat dealers who were present at the show and 57 percent of all local exhibitors. Most of the local exhibitors who we didn't get a response from were either public or non - profit agencies that didn't sell goods or services at the show or were in categories where the per exhibitor expenditures were quite low. We estimate that we have responses which include at least 85 percent of total local sales related to the show. 2.) Economic Analysis We have constructed two different estimates. The first, which we refer to as Estimate 1, is based largely on the customer surveys. The second, which we refer to as Estimate 2, is based largely on the exhibitor surveys. Estimate 1 and Estimate 2 differ in the way they measure: 1.) non -local customer purchases of goods and services (what we have called Category 1), and 2.) redirection of show merchandise purchased by local attendees away from out of town spending towards local spending (what we have called Category 4). In the following paragraphs, we explain how we arrived at the estimates for the nine expenditure categories. We provide a detailed explanation of this for all nine categories for Estimate 1, and then we detail Category 1 and Category 4 for Estimate 2. the other categories being the same for the two estimates. A critical question is how we arrived at the breakdown of attending consumers between the Local and non -local groups. So we begin with an explanation of how we determined this. Table 3 Estimate 1: Purchases l.;y Non -local Consumers of Local Merchandise At Show Merchandise Boats $ 613,000 Total Merchandise $ 654,000 As a Result of Contacts at Show Boats $15,475,000 Total Merchandise $16,129,000 Average Spending on Local Merchandise per non -local family $ 4,001 Estimate l's Procedure for Determining Category 2 Spending Analogously to Category 1, we relied on the 300 non -local telephone interviews to determine non -local spending on incidentals. Again the spending by the sample was multiplied by 13.44 to get the total non -local spending on incidentals. Again the data was re- weighted to adjust for the non -local attendance proportions during the different show days. We further adjusted the data by excluding incidental spending if a respondent told us that they had come to Cincinnati for a purpose other than to visit the show, and taking only 50 percent of incidental spending if a respondent told us that they had come to Cincin- nati partially for another purpose. From this we determined that total incidental spending was $212,000. Table 4 breaks down Category 2 spending by subgroups. Table 4 Non -local Incidental Spending in Cincinnati Refreshments at the Convention Center $ 13,000 Food and Drink outside the Center $ 86,000 Hotels and Motels $ 18,000 Transportation $ 41,000 Entertainment $ 40,000 Retail Shopping $ 14,000 Total Incidental $ 212,000 Average Spending on Incidentals per Non -local Family $ 52.59 Estimate 1's Procedure for Determining Category 3 Spending Spending by non -local customers on admissions to the Sports show was determined by taking the 4031 non -local families times 2.62 person -days for each family to get total non -local admissions of 10,561. At five dollars per person (we specifically excluded babies from our census), total admission revenues from non - locals is $53,000. Estimate l's Procedure for Determining Category 4 Spending The event to which the Sports Show caused local customers to redirect their'spending pattems away from non -local purchases and back to Cincinnati to the advantage of the Cincinnati economy was addressed by the survey of the 654 local residents. To determine the spending on show goods and services that was redirected away from outside the region, we asked the customers whether, if the show had not occurred, they would have bought merchandise outside the area. If they said yes, we then asked them how much they would have spent on that merchandise. Sixty -five of the 654 said that they would have redirected spending to non -local purchases without the show. Fifty -nine estimated that they would redirect on average $3,637. The other 6 who said they would redirect didn't know how much. Assuming that they would have redirected the same amount of spending as the 59, the 654 would have redirected a total of $236,435. Multiplying this by 34.79, the ratio of total local families to sampled families, the total purchases by local families that would have been made from non -local sellers is $8,225,000. Not all of this would have been spent on goods sold by local merchants. From the exhibitor surveys, (discussed in detail later), we determined that 76.7 percent of all merchandise sales from the show were by local merchants. Therefore, (.767) x $8,225,000 or $6,308,000 was the total displacement of sales from non -local sales to local sales as a result of the show. This information is summarized in Table 5. 5 Table 7 Estimate 1: Local Business Expenditure of Non -local Exhibitors Employment of Cincinnati arca Residents Set -up Costs in Cincinnati aura Bulk Rentals in Convention Center Booth Rentals in Convention Center Total Business Expenditure:: Business Expenditure/Non- '.ocal Exhibitor $ 22,000 $ 57,000 $ 32.000 $ 127.000 $ 238,000 $ 881 Estimate l's Procedure for Determining Category 7 Spending incidental spending by non -local dealers nienns their expenditures on such items as food, hotels, and retail purchases. These data came from the non -local dealer surveys. The questionnaire was supplemented by personal interviews with 125 respondents to determine how many "room-nights" they spent in hotels and motels. (Room - nights are determined by multi- plying the number of rooms times the number of :sights spent in them). Our sample of 137 non -local exhibitors reported that they spent $72,619 on food and drink, $14,170 on entertainment, $14,993 on transportation, and $49,622 on other miscella- neous expenditures. We multiplied this by 270/137 to get $144.000 on food and drink, $28,000 on entertainment, $30,000 on transportation, and $98.000 on miscellaneous expenditures. From our separate hotel interviews we determined that exhibitors occupied 3,176 room nights in hotels at an avcraLz» of $65 /night for a total expenditure of $206,000. Therefore, the total non - local exhibitors' incidental expenditures were $506,000. This information is summarized in Table 8. Table 8 Estimate 1: Non -local Exhibitors' Incidental Spending Expenditure on Food and Drink $ 144,000 Expenditure on Entertainment $ 28,000 Expenditure on Transportation $ 30,000 Expenditure on Miscellaneous $ 98,000 Expenditure on Hotels and Motels $ 206,000 Total Incidental Expenditures $ 506,000 Number of Hotel Room- Nights 3,176 Incidental Expenditure/ Exhibitor $ 1,874 Estimate l's Procedure for Determining Category 8 Incidental spending by factory representatives was determined from:the number of business cards left by them for admission to the show. To get free admission to the show, a factory rep must leave his business card with the Producers for each day of admission. Ninety cards were left. Assuming that each factory rep spends $180 /day, the estimate by the Interna- tional Association of Conventions and Visitors Bureaus of the per diem expenditure of a trade show delegate, total factory rep spending is $16,000. Estimate l's Procedure for Determining Category 9 The amount the show reduces Cincinnati economic activity by pulling money away from Cincinnati merchants and reallocating it to non -local exhibitors was determined by first taking total sales of the non -local exhibitors. According to the non -local exhibitor surveys, this was $8,925,000. We then excluded from this the portion that was sold to non -local custom- ers. This amount was $2,770,000. It was determined from asking respondents to the non -local exhibitor surveys what percent of their sales were to non -local customers. This left $6,155,000. But much of this we believe would not have returned to the Cincinnati economy had the show not occurred. The portion which is non -local non - profit and resort spending is essentially all tourist spending of one kind or another. We believe that if the show had not occurred, this part of the $6,155,000 would have still gone for tourist spending, but perhaps to different resorts or tourist areas. Therefore, we excluded the part of the spending that was local resort and non - profit spending. This leaves us with $1,306,000, which is the amount of Category 9. This amount is the amount that must be subtracted from the previous totals to get net incremental impact of the Sports Show. These results are summarized in Table 9. 7 and the merchandise they sold frorl*.zontact. following the show. Applying those.estt..iates, we get the following estimates of non -local purchases: Boats: $3,698,000; Banks: $746,000: RV's: $520,000; Resorts: $91,000; Fishing equipment: $16.000; Fitness equipment: $34,000; Miscellaneous Products: $58,000. The total of this category 1 spending, then, is $5.163,000. This information is summarized in Table 10. Table 10 Estimate 2: Non -local Purchases of Local Goods. Percent to Total Sales to Total Sales Non- locals Non - locals Boats $ 19,153,000 .193 $ 3,698,000 Banks $ 3,526,000 .212 $ 746,000 RV's . $ 1,040,000 .500 $ 520,000 Resorts $ 456,000 .197 $ 91,000 Fishing Equipment $ 161,000 .099 $ 16,000 Fitness Equipment $ 338,000 .100 $ 34,000 Miscellaneous Products $ 336.000 .173 $ 58.000.. Total Sales $ 25,010,000 .206 $ 5,163,000 Estimate 2's Measurement of Displacement of Spending from Non -local to Local Estimate 2 calculated category 4 by beginning with the total sales of local exhibitors as shown in the Total Sales column of Table 10 above. For each product group it then subtracts out sales to non -local customers. This leaves us with local exhibitors sales to local customers. Those numbers are Boats: $15,455,000; Banks: $2,780,000; RV's: $520,000; Resorts: $365,000; Fishing Eiluipmcnt: $145,000; Fitness Equipment: $304,000; Miscellaneous Products: $278,000. We then assumed that the same percent of each of these categories gets displaced as was displaced in aggregate in Estimate 1, Category 4 above. This percent can be calculated from data collected in the local customers survey. That survey asked how much local customers expected to purchase from the show. Taking the survey amount, $577,000 and multiplying it by 34.79, the ratio of total local attendance to sampled local attendance, we get: $20,090,000. This is Estimate 1's measures of the total local purchases resulting from the show. Now the ratio of total displaced spending to total spending is $8.225,000 (from Table 5) divided by $20.090,000. This equals 0.409: To get Estimate 2's measure of the amount of spending displaced from non -local to local spending, multiply the above numbers for local exhibitors sales to local customers by .409 for each product group. So, Boats' displaced spending is $6,321.000; Banks' displaced spending is $1,137,000; RV's displaced spending is $213,000; Resorts' displaced spending is $149.000; Fishing Equipment's displaced spending is $59,000; Fitness Equipment's displaced spending is $124,000; and Miscellaneous Products' displaced spending is $114,000. The total Category 4 displaced spending using Estimate 2 is $8,117,000. The Estimate 2 measure of Category 4 displaced spending is summarized in tabular form in Table 11: • Table 11 Estimate 2: Displacement of Spending from Non -local Sales to Local Sales Total Sales of Local Total Sales of Exhibitors to Local Displaced Local Exhibitors Consumers Local Sales Boats $ 19,153.000 $ 15,455,000 $ 6,321,000 Banks $ 3,526,000 $ 2,780,000 $ 1,137,000 RV's $ 1,040,000 $ 520,000 $ 213,000 Resorts $ 456,000, $ 365,000 $ 149,000 Fishing $ 161,000 $ 145,000 $ 59,000 Fitness $ 338,000 $ 304,000 $ 124,000 Miscell. $ 336,000 $ 278,000 $ 114.000 Total $ 25,010,000 $ 19,847,000 $ 8,117,000 . n adc.tion to the data reported in Ti study is presented in Table 13. 1 through 12 of the report, additional inform,;:r developed in the process or the Table 13 Supplementary Results Estimate 1: Total Exhibitor Sales Total Sales to Local Customers Total Sales to Non -local Customers by Local Exhibitors Total Sales to Non -local Customers by Non -local Exhibitors $ 38,651,000 $ 20,090,000 $ 16,129,000 $ 2,432,000* Estimate 2: Total Exhibitor Sales $ 33,935,000 Total Sales by Local exhibitors $ 25,010,000 Total Sales by Non -local Exhibitors $ 8,925,000 Total Families in Attendance 26,781 Non -local Families 4,031 Local Families 22,750 Hotel room - nights 3,837 Average Total expenditure per attending household $1,267 to $1,443 *This number is calculated from the non -local customer surveys of non -local customer purchases of non -local exhibitors' goods. IACVB updates economic impact statistics TIT lnlrrnatiomtl Association of Convention & Visitor Bureaus has released an update on the economic impact „convention and trade show delegates to a host community in 1990. Rased on the Travel Price Index Through December 1990, delegate worth increased 8.3 percent over 1989 levels. 1?ronnmic impact figures were first calculated by the IACV13 Convention Income Survey conducted by the certified piddle accounting firm of Laventhol & 1lorwath in 1988. The survey was used to help 1ACVR members determine the impart conventions and trade shows would have on their local.cconomies. The figures have been updated each year based on increases to the'1'ravel Price Index, which is a computation of per diem costs in major U.S. cities. .'Phis chart indicates delegate worth to a host community. Comet.: IACV11 News July /August 1991 15 Spending Generated Per Delegate Stay Spending Generated Per Delegate Day 1988 1989. 1990 1988 1989 199() ( +4.14 %) (+8.3 %) (1-4:14 %) ( +8.3 %) Convention Delegate Delegate Expenditure $518.65 $510.12 $584.95 $126.50 :8131:74 $142.67 Association 1 xpenditure 54.40 56.65 61.35 13.27 13:82 14.97 'littal $573.05 $596.77 $646.30 $139:77 $14.56 $157.64 Trade Show Delegate Delegate Expenditure $518.65 $540.12 $584.95 $126.50 $131.74 $142.67 Association Expenditure 54.40 56.65 61.35 13.27 '`'.'13.82 14.97 Exhibitor Expenditure 274.33 285.69 309.40 66.91 ' 69.68 75.46 Scarier Contractor Expenditure 19.11 19.90 21.56 4.66 I. 4.85 5.26 'Iitta1 . 8866.49 8902.36 $977:26 $211.34 $220.09 $238.36 Breakdown of Delegate Expenditures Iolrl Boom R, Incidentals $264.56 $275.51 $298.38 861.30 $66.96 $72.51 hotel Restaurants 56.87 59.22 64.14 13.87 14.43 15.63 OthrrHrslmtrants 59.08 61.53 66.63 14.41 15.01 16.26 Hospitality Suites 26.86 27.97 . 30.29 6.55 6.82 7.39 Enlrrlainmcnt 25.95 27.02 29.27 6.56 6.83 7.40 Retail Slows • 42.44 44.20 47.87 10.35 10.78 11.67 1.oral'I'ransportation 22.39 23.32 25.25 5.46 5.69 6.16 01 her 20.50 21.35 ' 23.12 5.00 5.22 5.65 '11N a1 8518.65 8540.12 8584.95 8126.50 $131.74 8142.67 Comet.: IACV11 News July /August 1991 15 WORKSHEET FOR APPROXIMATING ECONOMIC IMPACT OF CONSUMER EXPOSITIONS Non- Resident Attendee Impact $35.06 x /737/ Expenditures: A. Average Expenditures Per Group B. Times Total Number of Attendees (excluding exhibitor personnel + 2.3 (average number per group) $ fv) 7 7z. g C. Equals Total Expenditures by Non - Residents (88 %) x0.8a $ 3 -.37; .Z() D. Times Average % of Expenditures by Non - Residents (88 %) E. Equals Total Expenditures by Non - Residents $52.78 x / 7 3 // Purchases: F. Average Purchases from Local Exhibitors G. Times Line B - see above $ f9/ 7'/� H. Equals Total Purchases from Local Exhibitors by all Attendees x.90 $ 2Z6, /U‘ I. Times Average % of Purchases by Non - Residents (90 %) J. Equals Total Purchases by Non - Residents $1,858.00 x 500 Exhibitor Impact K. Average Expenditures Per Exhibitor L. Times Number of Exhibiting Companies • $ 9 Z7 v--/:) M. Equals Total Exhibitor Expenditures $350.00 N. Average Sales Commissions Paid to Local Residents O. Times Number of Exhibiting Companies x 5-a) P. Equals Total Exhibitor Sales Comm. Paid $ i 7 . 9 8 WORKSHEET FOR APPROXIMATING ECONOMIC IMPACT OF CONSUMER EXPOSITIONS (Continued) Total Expenditures. Non - Resident Attendees (Line E) $ Exhibitors (Line M) $ 99O22 Show ,Management (Total your own or use $1,367,000 average) $ '3X(' Service Contractors ($289,000 is average) $ Z22 TOTAL $ 3 /Z S« Expenditures Plus Purchases /Sales Commissions Total Expenditures (from above) Purchases from Local Exhibitors (Line J) Sales Commissions Paid Local Residents (Line P) GRAND TOTAL w 3 SHOW MANAGEMENT AND SHOW CONTRACTOR EXPENDITURES (In $1,000's) • Average /Show • All Shows - W/O NY Range (Show) Show Management $1,975 $1,367 $447 (Nor) - $5,013 (NY) Service Contractors $439 $289 $11 (Nor) - $1,191 (NY) CONSUMER EXPOSITION AUDIENCE PROFILE AUDIENCE QUALITY 12 Average Range Made Purchase at Show 37% 18 - 60% Average Purchase $8,072 $70 - $23,353 Median Purchase $66 • $15 - $179 Projected Purchases at Show $33,698,000 $942,000 - $105,723,900 Buying Plans in Next 12 Months As a Result of Show • 59% 52 - 74% 12 ATTENDEE EXPENDITURES AT CONSUMER EXPOSITIONS * Includes Gas /Auto, Local Transportation, Rental Cars, 20% of Airfare. ** Excludes Norwalk and Chicago. 2 Average /Group . All Shows VV. /O NY Range (Show) Food & Beverage $19.90 $14.56 $5.78 (Minn.) - $46.62 (NY) Lodging 4.74 3.13 0.37 (Phil)- 12.78 (NY) 'arking 4.21 3.51 2.28 (Clev.) - 7.72 (NY) Transportation* 6.04 4.20 1.58 (Clev.) - 15.23 (NY) Retail Shopping 6.99 6.08 2.66 (Minn.) - 11.51 (NY) • Entertainment 2.68 1.83 0.55 (Minn.) - 6.95 (NY) Other 1.47 1.75 0.06 (NY) - 3.06 (Chic.) , TOTAL EXPENDITURES $46.03 $35.06 Purchases from Local Exhibitors $204.93 $52.78 ** 5.04 (Clev.) - 545.80 (Nor) GRAND TOTAL $250.96 $87.84 * Includes Gas /Auto, Local Transportation, Rental Cars, 20% of Airfare. ** Excludes Norwalk and Chicago. 2 • EXHIBITOR EXPENDITURES AT CONSUMER EXPOSITIONS * Includes Rental Car, Gas /Auto, Local Transportation, Parking, 20% of Airfare. ** Show Services Included in Show Contractor Figures. 3 Average /Exhibitor All Shows W/O NY Range (Show) Food & Beverage $606 $404 $94 (Minn.) - $1,616 (NY) Lodging 843 436 27 (Minn.) - 2,876 (NY) Transportation* 167 149 60 (Minn.) - 255 (NY) Entertainment 298 191 45 (Minn.) - 831 (NY) Incidental /Unanticipated 143 111 61 (Nor) - 304 (NY) Exhibit Related: ** Temp Help . Local Advertising Other 67 340 - 181 48 327 192 21 (Phil.) - 161 (NY) 242 (Nor) - 507 (Phil.) 41 (Phil.) - 418 (Clev.) TOTAL EXPENDITURES $2,645 $1,858 Sales Commissions - Local Residents $333 $350 77 (Phil) - 578 (Chicago) GRAND TOTAL $2,978 $2,208 * Includes Rental Car, Gas /Auto, Local Transportation, Parking, 20% of Airfare. ** Show Services Included in Show Contractor Figures. 3 TOTAL PROJECTED EXPENDITURES PLUS PURCHASES & COMMISSIONS Total Exhibitors Purchases - Local Exhibitors Commissions - Local Residents . Grand Total 1988 Norwalk Boat $1,573,100 $9,141,100 $56,900 $10,771,100 1989 New York Boat 14,626,500 6,878,000 134,500 21,639,000 1989 Chicago Boat 6,191,700 10,008,100 211,000 16,410,800 1989 Philadelphia Boat* 1,843,400 2,750,100 17,000 4,610,500 L-, 989 Cleveland Home & Flower 5,544,300 317,100 125,300 5,986,700 1990 Minnesota Home & Garden 1,737,400 513,700 283,300 2,534,400 February 3, 1993 To: Denni Shefrin From: David Mar TSI 9Yansportation Solutions, Inc. 16310 NE 80th Street, Suite 100 Redmond, WA 98052 -3861 (206) 8834134 (800) 285 -4134 FAX: (206) 867 -0898 Subject: Parking and Access Strategy This memo is intended to respond to Item 6 of your letter dated January 19, 1993 as forwarded by Don Miles. In addition to an amplified description of the public information program and guide sign element of this program, we have briefly described the other basic elements of the parking program were outline in our June 1992 report titled Parking and Access Refinements. The strategy has changed very little from the plan described except that the size and duration of the larger events with the current design is reduced as compared to the previous proposal. This will result in a corresponding reduction in the traffic volumes and parking demands. The basic program elements in this strategy are generally accepted and proven approaches to parking management and operation and include the following: FEB 0 91W93 DEVELGPtvi6_i'J i Parking Supply - The principal refinement in the current parking strategy is that all parking will be accommodated on -site and in the contiguous parking lots located south of I -405. There will be a total of 1880 parking spaces on -site and directly contiguous to the site. In addition there are and estimated 800 to 1500 spaces available on weekends and evenings within a 4 block walking radius of the site when peak parking demands occur. Primary Site Ingress will be at 158th Street and Strander Boulevard off West Valley Highway. A directional Trail Blazer sign system (described in more detail later in this summary) will guide event attendees to these access roads that lead to the on -site parking. Trained and qualified exhibition center staff will provide traffic control along these roads leading to the site to maintain smooth flow of traffic and ensure the opportunity for emergency vehicle access Parking Lot Management will be include traffic directors that guide vehicles off the street into the parking lot where multiple cashiers (to reduce delay and queues) collect a nominal parking fee. Then parking attendants will load the lots starting closest to the building and park progressively further away from the building. In this way patrons park as close to the entrance as possible and pedestrians walk toward the building while the auto traffic and parking activity move away from the entrances. This serves to minimize pedestrian /automobile conflicts in the parking lot. When the primary lots reach their practical capacity, the traffic directors and cashiers will shift to the accessory parking planned to be; provided along the Puget Sound Power and Light right -of -way. The parking lot will be loaded in a pattern similar to the primary parking lots. As attendees leave and spaces in the middle of the parking lot become available, parking directors will guide parkers to these mid- lot.spaces. Handicapped parking will be located near the entrance to the building with barrier:free access to the building entrance. Denni Shefrin Page 2 Exiting traffic will be guided using cones and portable barriers to the main access roads (158th and Strander Boulevard) where traffic directors will control the inbound and outbound flows to ensure that inbound queues are minimized. Passenger Drop -off and Loading areas will be provided at each end of the building. Parking and traffic directors will guide vehicles to and from these loading areas. These loading areas can also be used for shuttle and charter transit buses that may be employed during selected larger events. A curb manager will ensure proper use and traffic control in these areas where pedestrian flows consolidate near the building entrance. Pedestrian Access will be provided by sidewalks that will be constructed as part of improvements to 158th and Strander Boulevard. Internal to the site will be marked pedestrian walkways that are located to minimize conflict with automobile traffic flows. A Public Information Program will be the cornerstone of the Parking and Access Strategy and will be designed to provide advance information regarding parking and access for most if, not all of the prospective exhibitors, attendees and employees of the facility. Key to the effectiveness of this program will be the people who manage it. It is proposed that the Operations Manager in coordination with the General Manager and Parking Supervisor, lead a program including several informational pieces will be developed to address the unique needs of new employees, exhibitors, and attendees. Primary elements of this program are proposed to include: o A brochure identifying transportation and parking options for employees will be included in new employee information packages and will advise employees of transit access options (including Metro timetables and route maps and information phone numbers), available shuttle services from hotels, and parking policies relative to on -site parking. Likewise, employees will be advised of those locations where parking is prohibited or where parking may result in towing of their car (neighboring businesses, fire lanes, etc.). o A informational package for exhibitors alerting them to lodging, dining and transportation options with emphasis on lodging with shuttle service to the site. Parking policies, preferred access and pricing for on -site parking during move - in/move -out and during events will be provided as part of the exhibitor information package. o In conjunction with event advertising via both print and broadcast media, the exhibition center will prepare complimentary art work and audio /video spots to educate event goers to transportation alternatives and the variety of driving routes people can use to minimize congestion and delay in traveling to the site. Preferred routes from the north and from the south will be defined and will be reinforced by guide signing on the street.. A Guide Sign System including a series of trail blazer guide signs are proposed to be posted along entry access routes leading to the site to guide drives who may be unfamiliar with the streets leading to the site. The following are the basic priceless of this program: o The guide signs are intended to be the smaller signs that are used to guide drivers to public facilities like rest areas, park and ride lots, parking garages, etc. These are TS! Transportation Solutions Inc Denni Shefrin typically a designed with white lettering :on a blue or brown background. Sometimes, like with the Seattle Center; Tacoma Dome or Kingdome, special logo designs are made a part of the sign message. To the maximum extent possible it is desired that a graphic image, be used instead of a word message because it will be much more easilyrecognizable. Further, assuming it is compatible with the symbolic image, signs that can be cut into a shape that outlines a simple, bold image to make them smaller yet easily identifiable. An example of this type sign is on the east coast where shapes are used in concert with logos to distinguish one historicattraction from another. This symbolic approach also reduces the appearance of sign clutter provided other standard traffic sign conventions are applied See the attached sketch. o The site is intended to have two accesspoints - 158th Street and Strander Boulevard. 158th will best serve traffic from the north while traffic inbound from the south will find Strander Boulevard more attractive as an alternative. Thus, if possible, color coded arrows will supplement the basic sign to guide people to their most convenient entrance. • Page 3 o As discussed above, simple arrows (knownas route marker assemblies) will supplement the basic sign to give driversa clear understanding of where the access route turns. These arrows will be changeable along West Valley Highway in order to respond to the magnitudeand:character of the traffic flow and event demand. I trust this provides the added explanation the City needs to make an informed decision regarding the proposed exhibition center. If 'you should have any questions regarding this memo or any other aspect of the program, ['encourage you to contact me at your earliest convenience. TSI Transportation Solutions Inc 24" • 8' 24" 1 R FF. E I VED FEB 0 9 1393 DEVELOPMENT TSI Trusportsilon Solutions, Ix. Typical Guide Sign Exhibition Facility City of Tukwila Nelson Place/McLeocoeing CSTC Storm Drainage Study Technical Report FINAL December 29,1992 City Project #92 -DR05 RECEIVED JAN 0 4 1993 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Prepred by: Hammond, Collier & Wade - Livingstone Associates, Inc. 4010 Stone Way North Seattle, Washington 98103 -8090 (206) 632 -2664 HCW -L Project #92034 .... , HAMMOND. COLLIER & WADE - LIVINGSTONE ASSOCIATES. INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS LARRY R WADE. P E BRUCE LIVINGSTONE. P E FREDERICK G KERN. P E JOHN 0 LEE. P E DON PHELPS. P E KENNETH L EDINGTON. P L S Mr. Ron Cameron City Engineer City of Tukwila Public Works Department 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES SINCE 1943 Re: Nelson Place /McLeod /Boeing Drainage Study Tukwila Project #92 -DRO5 HCW -L #92034 Dear Mr. Cameron: 4010 STONE WAY NORTH SEATTLE. WASHINGTON 98103.8090 TELEPHONE 1206) 632.2664 I-800-562-7707 FAX 12061632-0947 December 16, 1992 HAROLD E RAYNARD. P E ROBERT E BERGSTROM. P E JOHN HENDRON. P E DALE D ERDAHL. P L S JUDY FREEBORN. ASLA Please find attached the final engineering report on the Nelson Place /McLeod /Boeing Drainage. This project evaluated the basin's existing drainage conditions, reviewed previous drainage study work by KCM, R.W. Beck and others, performed hydrologic analysis of the basin's existing and proposed storm drainage and site development projects, and updated the City of Tukwila's Nelson Place /Longacres Way Storm Drainage Plan to meet the area's current needs. Thank you for the opportunity to work with the City of Tukwila. Enclosure REB /mgi \working \bergstrm \came 10l 2.doc Very truly yours, HAMMOND, COLLIER & WADE - LIVINGSTONE ASSOCIATES, INC. ukr Robert E. Bergstrom, P.E. CERTIFICATE OF ENGINEER CITY OF TUKWILA NELSON PLACE /MCLEOD /BOEING DRAINAGE STUDY The technical material and data contained within this report have been prepared by or under the direction of the following registered professional engineers, licensed in accordance with the laws of the State of Washington to practice in the State • Washington. rEXPIRES: 3/26/9 1 \working \bergstrm \tukcert.doc Robert E. Bergstrom, P.E. Do, ?rE. Don Phelps, P.E. `EXPIRES 8/22/ q y Nelson Place /McLeod /Boeing CSTC Storm Drainage Study Technical Report Table of Contents Letter of Transmittal Certification by Professional Engineer Table of Contents Section 1 - Introduction General Scope of Work Section 2 - Study Area Conditions Basin Description Existing Drainage Sub -Basin Collection System Current Green River Management Strategy Previous Studies Flood Plain Section 3 - Hydraulic Computer Modeling Develop Basin Drainage Network Computational Modeling of Basin Identify Problem Areas Compliance Storm System Improvement Needs Compliance with King County Surface Water Design Manual Section 4 - Update Nelson Place Long Acres Way Storm Drainage Plan Identify Storm Water Facility Needs McLeod Development Requirements Potential LID Formation Implementation Requirements and Costing Appendix A - References Appendix B - FEMA References Appendix C - Hydraulic Model Output Tabulations Appendix D - Sverdrup Design - SW 16th Street Storm Drain \rp92 \tukwila.doc SECTION 1 • INTRODUCTION A. General This Technical Report has been prepared to review the previous City of Tukwila's Nelson Place /Longacres Way Storm Drainage System Plan and Preliminary Design prepared by KCM in 1988. That excellent 1988 report has guided development in this sub -basin for the last four years. Changing development and a re- evaluation of the Eastside Green River Water Shed Plan by the City of Renton has called into question some of the design basis of the 1988 report. B. Scope of Work On August 17, 1992, the City of Tukwila authorized Hammond, Collier & Wade - Livingstone Associates, Inc. to perform the storm drainage analysis for the Tukwila Nelson Place Basin. The scope of work specifically included the following items: I. Existing Conditions A. General reconnaissance of the existing ditch and culvert systems, examine major drainage ways and storm systems from the Tukwila Nelson Place Basin to the Springbrook Creek channel. Prepare field evaluation summary discussing the channel condition, inventory the existing storm drainage pipes and improvements and potential for future problems. Present the summary and condition survey of facilities inventoried. Review existing sensitive area and soil mapping records. B. Review of existing storm drainage improvement plans in the Nelson Place Basin, adjacent developed area and downstream area. Review the as -built records for existing storm water improvements. C. Develop a revised drainage plan and map the existing storm facilities. Using City ACAD base map, prepare a storm drainage facility and inventory map and exhibit. 1 -1 \rp92\tukwila.doc D. Review and summarize the existing storm drainage studies including the KCM "Nelson Place /Longacres Way Storm Drainage System Preliminary Design" drainage report for the Nelson Place area, and the R.W. Beck East Side Green River Watershed study in the City of Renton Springbrook basin and for new developments including: Boeing CSTC and the McLeod Exhibition Facility Basin Analysis. II. HYDROLOGIC ANALYSIS A. Develop basin and sub -basin drainage systems model network. Use the infor- mation collected in the field investigation phase of the project and the review of previously developed drainage plans. Prepare the drainage system model tributary basins, and conveyance links for the computational work. Develop the future system model around the proposed S.W. 16th Street storm sewer to the P -1 and Springbrook system. B. Computational modeling of main storm conveyance systems under existing conditions and at full buildout of the community in accordance with the City's adopted land use plan. The computational model uses single event approach, the Santa Barbara Urban Hydrograph method, as adopted from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service storm water runoff methods. Perform computational modeling of the drainage system in accor- dance with the King County Surface Water Design Manual. C. Identification of problem areas with specific interest in capacity limitation, potential for flooding and storm water detention requirements. Evaluate the capability of the proposed 48" diameter storm drain interceptor to the P -1 along S.W. 16th Street within the City of Renton. Evaluate the need for storm detention in the City of Tukwila Nelson Place basin. Review the impacts upon the current storm drainage plan by KCM from the proposed McLeod devel- opment plan. Evaluate the Boeing and Sverdrup proposed design of the P -1 storm interceptor both on an interim and permanent basis. Develop recom- mendations for the establishment of a 100 -year flood level in the McLeod pro- ject area, considering the two somewhat contradictory flood planning efforts in the Renton Springbrook basin. 1 -2 \rp92 \tukwila.doe III UPDATE THE NELSON PLACE /LONGACRES WAY STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM, PRELI INARY DESIGN TO MEET CURRENT NEEDS A. Identify proposed storm water facility needs. Evaluate proposed drain ge improvements, routing and conveyance sizing. Provide recommendat ons on the S.W. 1 6th Street (P -1) storm interceptor sizing and capacity. Provid rec- ommendations on the proposed McLeod development plan. Provide ecom- mendations on the City's future assignment of storm water detention re • uire- ments in this Nelson Place basin. Review the potential for formation of • local improvement district for storm water improvements. B. Develop cost opinions, special permitting and easement requirements. C. Present recommendations to City of Tukwila Public Works staff, develo•er rep - resentatives, and City of Renton technical staff. 1 -3 \rp92\tukwilo.do SECTION 2 - STUDY AREA CONDITIONS A. Basin Description The Nelson Place /Longacres Way Sub -Basin is a portion of the larger east side of the Green River Basin in South King County, Washington. The primary stream in the east side portion of the Green River Basin is Springbrook Creek, which is tribu- tary to the Green River at Fort Dent Park where the combination of the two is called the Duwamish River. Both the Nelson Place /Longacres Way Sub -basin and the larger Springbrook Creek Basin have been considerably impacted by human intervention since the turn of the century. The construction of the Ballard Locks and the Lake Washington Ship Canal started the changes in the 1910's by diverting the Cedar River and Lake Washington from the Green - Duwamish River System and damming up the Black River at the location of the present P -1 Pump Station. In the 1950's and 1960's the dikes along the Green River were raised to provide 100 -year flood protection in conjunction with the construction of the Howard Hansen Dam in the upper Green River basin. The initial phases of the SCS East Side Green River Water Shed Project were implemented in the 1970's with the construction of the P -1 Black River Pump Station at the confluence of the Springbrook /Black River and the Green River. Later in the 1980's the widened Springbrook Creek /P -1 channel was constructed in phases almost to S.W. 16th Street in Renton. The Nelson Place /Longacres Way Sub -basin was gradually developed from it's early use as a dairy farm. changing to Tight industrial, warehouse, hotel and strip commercial uses. The sub -basin is also crossed by several major utility and transportation corridors; 1 -405, South West Grady Way, West Valley Highway, Strander Blvd.. the Seattle Water Department Bow Lake Pipeline, the Burlington Nor-them Railroad, the Union Pacific Railroad and the Puget Power electrical transmission lines along the old Interurban Trolley right -of -way. The sub -basin topography is generally flat. with the highest portion on the west, and gently sloping easterly to Springbrook Creek. Since 1988 , several sites within the City of Tukwila have been re- developed, including: the Hampton Inn and the Embassy Suites Hotels. There are very few undeveloped parcels remaining in the sub - basin. 2 -1 \rp92 \tukwila.doc . BLACK RIVER ) r SWecT U,J`1t Kil EXISTING SPRINGBROOK 113 ST. —.z CREEK AND P -1 CHANNEL RE TSHOP INe t CENTER. FORT DENT PARK RENTON SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT M / PI < • 'I 3 EARLINGTON', 4, > yM INDUSTRIAL C E AREA al a qf 10 St ��' k,120 RENTON VILL SHOPPING CEI EXIT 2 1 .14 h. lit Par h W,1 EXIT •S• South Center Evans Black Dr kid " }. BI d NELSON PLACE DRAINAGE SUB -BASIN V1 W 1.7 NEW BOEING CSTC FACILITY -:• J/ ON OLD LONGACRES SITE SW 27 ST S 28 Talbb neck Dr a. Corporate Dr S to SW 34 ST Minkler Div GREEN RIVER UplenOOr 1 N Access J CITY OF TUKWILA —+- $.Access Sat0111 S 'NO 1 Orilli SW 43 ST VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER 17 ST S 17 sr mr of 36 CITY OF KENT S 'Wm s leg ST _. .. - f .I s ree sT R E E HAMMOND, COLLIER & WADE FIGURE #1 NELSON PLACE STORM DRAINAGE STUDY VICINITY MAP — LIVINGSTONE ASSOCIATES, INC. B. Existing Drainage Sub -basin Collection System The Nelson Place /Longacres Way drainage sub -basin storm collection basin has been improved since the 1986 drainage study. The major storm system is the 6' box culvert along So. 158th Street, extending from the Embassy Suites easterly to the Burlington Northern railroad tracks. This box culvert provides the east -west conveyance for all the properties in the sub - basin. The drainage in Nelson Place has been improved with construction of a new 24" diameter storm drain from S. 156th Street to S. 158th Street. In addition, the improved drainage ditch along the westerly slide of the Union Pacific railroad tracks has been constructed from the box culvert, northerly to the rear of A & L Welding Supply. These drainage improvements closely follow the recommended improvements from the 1986 drainage study. The remaining storm conveyances in the sub -basin are shallow ditches and undefined flow paths through the unimproved properties. The entire sub -basin drains to the existing 24" diameter storm drain under the Burlington Northern tracks and thence through the existing Longacres Race Track storm system. The drainage in the racetrack is conveyed by a 24" drain to the track infield, and then under the barnyards through a pipe and discharging to Springbrook Creek approximately 450 feet south of S.W. 16th Street. C. Current Green River Management Strategy The Green River is a managed river system controlled by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The Howard Hansen Dam is operated in accordance with the con- gressional enabling legislation that limits flows on the Green River at the Aubum Gauge to less than 12,000 cfs for a 500 -year storm recurrence interval. This is a substantial reduction in flooding risk, since this 12,000 cfs flow represents a 2 -year recurrence interval if the Green River were unregulated. The Corps of Engineers and the SCS East Side Green River Water Shed Project are integrated through the Green River Management Agreement dated July 18, 1985, which establishes a maximum pumping rate for the P -1 Black River Pump Station (BRPS). This agreement avoids overtopping of the levees along the Green River when the river is at crest, by reducing the P -1 BRPS flows added to the Green River. 2 -2 \rp92 \tukwila.doc 77 ■ SCALE 1" = 400'± -..............-•-•,...."""'" O INDUSTRIAL CRATE ® MUELLER BRASS 0 JOHN'S FURNATURE o 14. -e% 0 A & L WELDING 0 TELE. REPEATER TOWER ® RENTON WELDING 0 SERVICE AMERICA 0 DANIEL BOONE PAINTS 0 EASY RIDER BOATS 0 TOUMA ENGR ® ABANDONED SERVICE STATION BARN AREA L_ LONGACRE:S TRACK .0 7 13 1• ......t. 0 BURLINGTON NORTHER FIELD ANDYS DINER OLD NELSON FARM TRANSMISSION TO (!) VIEST VW-EY HIGHWAY HAMPTON INN \DWG\ENGDWG\92\92034\FIG2 1-400 SCALE 1" = 400'± BARN AREA L O N G A C R E S T R A C K < I N G PARKING GRASS 5-1 U F I E L D BURLINGTON NORTHERN RR N 3 N CITY OF RENTON CI`TT 5?F "TUKWILA CHICAGO, MILWAUKEE ST PAUL PACIFIC RR PUGET POWER R/W ��TRANSMISSION i WE ST VALLEY HIGHWAY PUGET POWER SUBSTATION m Q- a Iz N � FIGURE #2 NELSON BASIN EXISTING CONDITIONS EXISTING LONGACRES STORM WATER PUMP STATION EXISTING STORM DRAIN TO SPRINGBROOK CREEK BARN AREA 77 4111111 SCALE 1" = 400 LONGACRES TRACK DITCHES WITH INDEFINITE OUTLETS DITCH DITCH FIELD BOX CULVERT 41-8" WIDE x 1'-10" HIGH . EMBASSY SUITES , BURUN ANDY'S DM DINER OLD NELSON FARM v4E.ST e!) ALLEsf "'G'41° HAMPTON INN 18 SD 24" SD HAMPTON INN STORM WATER PUMP & FORCEMAIN 233 GPM \DWG \ENGDWG\92 \92034\FIG3 1-400 :S P SCALE 1" = 400'± AI DRAIN )K CREEK BARN AREA O N G A C R E S T R A C K PARKING • GRANhSTANOS..' r r.r ss 'DITCH F I E L D BOX CULVERT 4' —S" WIDE x 1' -10" HIGH .BURLINGTON NORTHERN RR cn N CITY OF RENTON CTT1f SF niKWILA CHICAGO, MILWAUKEE ST PAUL PACIFIC RR PUGET POWER R/W ANSMISSION WER PUGET POWER SUBSTATION 1 HIGHWAY ST VALLEY 24" SD = HAMPTON INN STORM WATER PUMP & FORCEMAIN 233 GPM \ FIGURE #3 NELSON BASIN EXIST DRAINAGE CONDITIONS The maximum pumping rate for the P -1 Black River Pump Station established under the Green River Management Agreement are as follows: Measured Green River Flows at the Aubum Gauge < 9,000 cfs 9,500 cfs 9,500 cfs 10,000 cfs 10,500 cfs 11,000 cfs 11,500 cfs 12,000 cfs P -1 BRPS Allowable Pumping Rate As required 2,945 cfs 2,900 cfs 2,400 cfs 1,900 cfs 1,400 cfs 900 cfs 400 cfs or to zero as determined by the KCDPW The BRPS flows may be restricted to zero depending upon levee monitoring along the Green and Duwamish Rivers. D. Previous Studies The first post -war engineering planning efforts affecting the Nelson Place /Longacres Way Sub -basin were initiated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in the 1950's and led to the construction of the Howard Hansen Dam and the strengthened dikes along the Green River. In a parallel effort, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Soil Conservation Service began the Green River Water Shed Program, which was completed on the west side of the valley and resulted in construction of the P -17 storm water pump plant that protects the Southcenter retail complex. The more extensive East Side Green River Water Shed Project was developed to be complementary to the Green River Corps work and was partially constructed. 2 -3 \rp92\$ukwila.doc 1988 KCM Study The City of Tukwila provided local sponsorship of the SCS program, and from 1986 through 1988, developed a storm drainage plan for the Nelson Place /Longacres Way Sub -basin that integrated into the SCS East Side Green River Water Shed Project. This drainage plan, prepared by the consulting firm of KCM, envisioned a new 48 -inch diameter storm drainage pipe extending from the easterly portion of the sub -basin into Renton along S.W. 16th Street, and dis- charging into the P-1/Springbrook Creek. 1991 Beck ESGRW Plan Revision The City of Renton initiated a reconfigured SCS project which in turn is depend- ent on the HSPF hydraulic modeling work performed by the firm of North West Hydraulics. The hydraulic modeling effort was based upon a limited stream gauging record of only several years. During the years 1990 and 1991, several major storm events occurred too late into the modeling effort and were not incorporated into the HSPF Model. This data and later work by North West Hydraulics has called into question the modeling work in the R.W. Beck summary study (ESGRWP Current Conditions Document) which incorporated the HSPF model. The following section is quoted from the R.W. Beck Technical Memorandum date July 1992 "Boeing CSTC Facility Flood Plain Analysis Review ". The HSPF model predicts Tower peak flow rates, however it is believed that the HSPF also predicts higher runoff volumes. The HSPF modeling approach is generally considered to be more reliable due to the reasons mentioned above. It should be noted: however, that more recent hydrologic work completed by Northwest Hydraulic Consultants (NHC) may indicate that the ESGRW Plan hydrology may be underestimating peak flow rates. The 100 -year flood predicated by the HSPF model was based upon a study period of 1961 -1987. By expanding the study period to include the severe flood events of 1990 and 1991, the HSPF model will likely predict higher peak flows. 2 -4 \rp92\1ukwila.doc In a telephone conversation with the R.W. Beck author, Mike Giseburt said if the HSPF model currently in use was updated with the 1990 and 1991 flood events, it may predict peak flows 30% higher than the current Beck reports' results. The HSPF model work developed existing and future flows from each sub -basin in the Springbrook Creek system. The Nelson Place /Longacres Way Sub -basin exist- ing peak storm water flow in a 100 -year storm event was considered so slight that no discharge was assigned from this basin. In addition, the sub -basin at buildout was assumed to discharge without any storm detention. The sub - basin's future discharge point was assigned at the S.W. 16th Street Bridge over Springbrook Creek. FEMA Flood Plain Management The U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency assumed the role of deter- mining the areas of flooding risk in the United States, and replaced previous efforts by HUD and the old Washington State Department of Conservation. Several studies evaluating flood risk in the east side of the Green River Basin were performed by consultants retained by FEMA. The 1981 published FEMA maps for Renton and Tukwila establish a 100 -year boundary which covers part of the Nelson Place /Longacres Way Sub - basin. The 1981 maps were based upon modeling work performed by Tudor Engineering in 1979. In 1989 a second study was performed by CH2M -Hill for FEMA, investigating the reach of Springbrook Creek from S.W. 16th Street and the P -1 BRPS pump station. The 1989 FEMA work determined a 100 -year flood plain at an elevation of 16.4 feet U.S.G.S. Flood plain management is the responsibility of the City of Tukwila. For the FEMA regulations, the primary areas of interest are the floodway portions of the flood plain. In the Springbrook basin this floodway is within or adjacent to the creek. The Nelson Place /Longacres Way Sub -basin is within the portion of the flood plain defined as the flood fringe which is covered with flood waters, but out of the path of flowing water currents. Under FEMA regulations , development in the Flood Fringe is permitted provided that it complies with flood proofing and elevation requirements. This has been implemented in the Springbrook basin by requiring that filling below the elevation of the 100 -year flood elevation be compensated by excavation of a compensatory volume of earth below the elevation of the 100 -year flood, to assure there is no net loss of flood fringe stor- age. 2 -5 \rp92 %tukwila.doc • The original SCS ESGRW project did not anticipate any sizable volume of flood fringe storage remaining within the Springbrook basin, and as a result, the chan- nels, the BRPS and the associated wetlands were sized accordingly. The partial divergence from this program by the City of Renton and the new ESGRW pro- gram presented in the R.W. Beck reports makes preservation of flood fringe areas below the revised, predicted flood plain elevations important. The FEMA flood fringe is also regulated under the King County Surface Water Drainage Manual, Special Requirement # 9, under which the 100 -year Flood Plain must be delineated. The City of Tukwila is responsible for implementation of the FEMA regulations within its corporate limits. The City has been requiring new construction to be elevated 3 feet above the 100 -year federally- established flood level. The City of Renton has administered the Springbrook Basin somewhat differently, requiring new construction to be elevated 1 foot above the 100 -year federally estab- lished flood level. 1992 Boeing CSTC Sverdrup Study The Boeing redevelopment of the Longacres Race Track into the new Consumer Services Training Center Site (CSTC) drastically modifies the Renton area east of the Tukwila City Limits. The CSTC project work includes removal of the old track and replacement with a large office /business park. The Sverdrup study is pri- marily directed toward intemal site drainage design of the CSTC project; how- ever, it does present the preliminary design of the S.W. 16th Street Storm Drain and the hydraulics performance of the proposed storm Sewer. In conjunction with the S.W. 16th Street drainage planning effort, Boeing and the City of Tukwila have tentatively agreed to modify the existing drainage from the Nelson Place /Longacres Way basin flow across the Boeing CSTC site. This modification will be implemented by the construction of an overflow weir at the inlet of the CSTC storm system, and flows up to a maximum of 18 cfs will be diverted to the CSTC storm system only after storm water in the Tukwila sub -basin backs up to an elevation of 13.0 and overtops the concrete weir wall. Under this proposal, the new storm drain in S.W. 16th Street will convey all storm flows until storm water pools on the Tukwila side of the tracks to an elevation of 13.0, and then storm waters will split and a proportion will begin to flow through the Boeing CSTC site drainage. 2 -6 \rp92 \tukwila.doc 1992 McLeod Eastside Consultants Study The proposed McLeod development is a new, privately developed, convention and exhibition hall on an approximately 28 -acre site between the UP and BN railroad tracks within the City of Tukwila. E. Flood Plain The current FEMA study for the Tukwila sub -basin and the area south of S.W. 16th Street in Renton was performed in 1989 by CH2M Hill under contract with FEMA. This study was performed during the period when the City of Renton and SCS were constructing, in phases, several critical elements of the P -1 drainage chan- nel and several of the major structures under S.W. 16th Street, 1 -405 and S.W. Grady Way. At the time the report was prepared, the study consultant was required to consider only certain drainage elements that were either in con- struction or budgeted and committed. The work of Renton, King County and SCS has made this FEMA study obsolete. The 1989 FEMA study's assumed condi- tions have been modified by these major changes in the basin: 1. Increased BRPS Pump Capacity. The Black River Pump Station operated by King County has been modified by bringing on -line two of the larger 514 CFS pumps. These pumps were previously installed, but kept in a mothballed status. Their change to operational status increases the pump station capacity from 875 cfs to approximately 1917 cfs. As pointed out by R.W. Beck, these added pumps provide an overall plant pumping capacity in excess of the peak flow of Springbrook Creek. 2. Drainage Structure Changes. The 1989 FEMA Study was performed just at the time the S.W. Grady Way Street improvement project was under construction by the City of Renton. Associated with this street work, a new box culvert was constructed for the conveyance of Springbrook Creek into the newly widened P -1 Channel. However, because of Washington State Department of Fisheries concerns, which have now been resolved, the newly constructed box culvert had 4 of its 5 cells blocked off by timbers. This reduced the capacity of the culvert and 2 -7 \rp92\tukwila.doc restricted flows in the Springbrook Channel. The FEMA study incorpo- rated the temporary channel capacity constraint at S.W. Grady Way into the study work. This temporary blockage has now been removed. The City of Renton has constructed the new, replacement bridge at S.W. 16th Street which has resulted in a significant improvement to channel capacity. This improvement was performed after the release of the FEMA 1989 study and is not reflected in the hydraulics work. The constructed channel bottom profile between S.W. Grady Way, under 1 -405 and S.W. 16th Street for the new structures and the future channel, are different from the elevations used in the 1989 FEMA study. Because the FEMA study was performed in the transition period from the original planning effort for the P -1 Channel, to finished design drawings, appar- ently some older channel bottom elevations were used rather than the implemented design elevations. The FEMA study used elevations that vary in some cases (reference R.W. Beck Report 7/9/92) as much as 3 feet higher from constructed grades. The flood flow behavior of Springbrook Creek could be further modified by conversion into service the P -1 Box Culvert under 1 -405, which is currently blanked off, and out of service. 3. 100 -near Flood Level Prediction for Nelson Place /Lonaacres Way Sub - basin. These previously discussed physical modifications to the lower P -1 Springbrook Creek basin make significant changes to the way the 100 - year flood plain is determined. The actual 100 -year flood to be experi- enced in the Springbrook basin is probably something different from the FEMA established 16.4 feet, south of S.W. 16th Street. The prediction of the "actual" 100 -year flood event is a difficult task that is mixed together with both engineering judgment and the requirement to adhere to FEMA procedures. The City of Renton's consultant work by R.W. Beck and North West Hydraulics has developed a new model of the Springbrook /P -1 basin using a continuous hydraulic simulation model. Their modeling approach combined the HSPF generated hydrographs for the sub -basin 2-8 \rp92 \tukwila.doc LEGEND F 22 20 18 16 SPRINGBROOK CREEK WATER SURFACE ELE/A'T1ON PROFILE EXISTING CHANNEL SYSTEM - /FUTURE LAND USE CONDMONS 100 YEAR EVENT High Springbrook Creek Flows (Conveyance) Current Land Use Conditions High Springbrook Creek Flows (Conveyance) Future Land Use Conditions High BRPS Storage (High Green River Flows) Current Land Use Conditions High BRPS Storage (High Green River Flows) Future Land Use Conditions FEMA Base Flood APPROX. LOCATION LOF S.W. 16TH STREET FEMA BASE FLOOD MOO HIGH BRPS STORAGE 14 STORAGE MODE FUTURE LAND USE 12 o 10 0 t.v HIGH BRPS STORAGE STORAGE MODE CURRENT LAND USE ---- - - - >-- cn HIGH SPRINGBROOK CREEK FLOWS CONVEYANCE MODE N FUTURE LAND USE 3 N Oaksdale Av. HIGH SPRINGBROOK CREEK FLOWS CONVEYANCE MODE CURRENT LAND USE 0 2 0 5000 Distance (ft) Bottom Profile 10000 .., C WATER SURFACE ELEVATION PROFILE EM - CURF 3YT /FUTURE LAND USE CONDITIONS 00 YEAR EVENT RA001010 —.— ROADWAY SURFACE MOO ■MINIMI DWS SW 27th St. Bottom Profile once (ft) 10000 TOP OF CULVERTS BOTTOM OF CULVERTS 15000 A- z EAST SIDE GREEN RIVER WATERSHED PLAN HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS REPORT FIGURE 4 SPRINGBROOK CREEK WATER SURFACE PROFILE R.W BECK and routed these flows through the basin conveyance system using R.W. Beck's FEQ (Full Equations) routing model. The City of Renton's consult- ants also performed a much more detailed computational model on the behavior of the existing wetlands in the Renton Valley, and incorporated these storage volumes into the modeling work. Table #1 from the R.W. Beck Report dated 7/9/92, entitled "Boeing CSTC Facility Flood Plain Analysis Review " is attached for review. These predicted 100 -year flood elevations for Springbrook Creek just upstream of the S.W. 16th Street Bridge are: Current and use, 100 -year storm with existing channel & In Storage Mode: el. 8.84 feet Current land use, 100 -year storm with existing channel & In Conveyance Mode: el. 9.91 feet Future and use, 100 -year storm with existing channel & In Storage Mode: el. 13.04 feet Future land use, 100 -year storm with existing channel & in Conveyance Mode: el. 10.52 feet Consistent with the original SCS design of the P -1 system, the BRPS has two different operational modes, first, the Conveyance Mode when the Green River is below the 9,500 cfs flows, the pump station discharges uninterrupted, and second, the Storage Mode when the Green River is higher than 9,500 cfs in flows, the BRPS has a reduced capacity in accor- dance with the Green River management agreement. This more advanced analysis effort is tempered by the limited time period used to predict the 100 -year flood events. The HSPF model was based upon a study period between 1961 and 1987; however, the larger storms of 1990 and 1991, if incorporated into the data base, would likely cause the HSPF model to predict larger flood flows (reference R.W. Beck report 7/9/92). 2 -9 \rp92 \tukwila.doe - I.ocalion /1)iscriplion Roadway TopElev. Ea) Cu cyj_100 yf_staragc) 1Lfli LUij00 yr, conv.) ma Efourc 100 miming) iloiage) L5lsltng r119aflg. yM w Flow Elevation (cfs) Ff:Q (future 100 yr. conv,) FEMA (1) Flow Elev. (cfs) !?ling _gigue( System Eg ling ielluci System Flow Elevation (cfs) I'sxlst(itg Channel Svslcm Elevation Flow Elevation (cfs) Flow (cfs) 11111'S outflow 925 903 1439 1439 URPS Inflow 588 8.10 903 4.95 950 12.95 1105 8.10 1230 (2) 15 Grady Way u/s 502 8.64 847 9.44 831 13.01 1007 9.99 1100 16 SW 1611i u/s 501 8.84 846 9.91 804 13.04 1005 ma. (i Confluence of North 60" SS 99 9.6f 844 11.31 . 792 13.16 1003 11.97 16 Confluence of P -9 461 10.38 767 12.12 680 13.28 925 12.81 16 SW 27111 u/s 17.9 457 11.29 780 14.31 656 14.25 934 15.85 16.3 SW 34111 Ws 14.9 501 12.31 941 15.45 765 15.04 1097 16.15 16.8 Oaksdale d/s 17.1 477 13.32 874 16.43 720 15.74 1025 17.09 17.7 Oaksdale u/s 477 13.90 874 17.60 720 17.16 1025 17.93 17.7 SW 43rd d/s 22.9 477 14.33 867 17.89 728 17.39 1017 18.28 18 SW 43rd u/s 22.9 477 14.46 867 18.40 728 17.68 1017 19.01 IR Notes (1) FEMA is based upon current land use conditions and does not consider future land use conditions. Elevations are approximated from FEMA maps. (2) 1230 cfa Is the peak flow. 1lowever, the flow corresponding to the flood plain. elevation Is 785 cfa which corresponds to a starling water surface In Ilse forebay of elevation 15.0 .1 SECTION 3 - HYDROLOGIC ANALYSIS ._. A. Develop Basin Drainage Network The existing storm drainage basin has been examined for possible changes from the 1988 study, and storm improvements constructed since that time have been incorporated. The interior sub - basins and reach numbering system has been ._ adopted from the McLeod drainage study by Eastside Consultants to make review easier. The storm system is configured on Figure #4 "Nelson Basin , Hydrology ". The proposed site storm drainage improvements for the McLeod project have been incorporated directly from the Eastside Consultants report. The entire Nelson Place /Longacres Way Sub -basin drainage discharges into the existing 24" diameter culvert under the elevated Burlington Northern Railroad tracks. These tracks form the easterly boundary of the Nelson Place /Longacres Way Sub - basin. The 24" culvert transmits runoff from the west side of the tracks to the east side and discharges it into the Longacres racetrack area. Occasionally surface runoff from the sub -basin ponds on the west side of the BNRR tracks. A second set of railroad tracks, belonging to the Union Pacific (UPRR), are located in the middle of the basin and are also constructed on an elevated embankment which restricts surface water from running from the west half of the basin to the east half. The only point where surface water movement may occur is where the South 158th Street roadway and box culvert pass under the tracks. A series of storm drainage improvements are proposed in the sub - basin. The new McLeod development of an exhibition facility has been located between the BNRR and UPRR tracks. The Longacres racetrack property is proposed for development by the Boeing Aircraft Company to serve as a Customer Services Training Center. As part of the Boeing CSTC studies, the 48 " storm drain along S.W. 16th Street in Renton has been incorporated into the project. This new storm drain would connect the existing 24" storm drain from the Nelson Place /Longacres Way Sub -basin and extend along S.W. 16th Street to the P- 1 /Springbrook Creek and discharge into this channel. This proposed drain would become the primary conveyance of storm water from the sub - basin; however, the existing conveyance through the Longacres site would perform as an additional relief when storm waters in the sub -basin rise to an elevation of 13.0 feet. 3 -1 \rp92 \tukwila.doc EXISTING STORM DRAIN TO SPRINGBROOK AMIE SCALE 1" = 400'± L O N G A C R E S T R A C K ARKING N1 BM NP1 P A AN1 OLD N FARM HAMPTON INN \DWG \ENGDWG \92 \92034 \FIG4 1400 STORM DRAIN IGBROOK 777 41111111111G SCALE 1" = 400'± BARN LONGACRES EXISTING 240 STORM DRAIN AREA TRACK !KING Ni 41=, MIMMID fa& 1=2 MEI GRASS C2 NP1 „ SP Si CHICAGO, MILWAUKEE ST PAUL PACIFIC RR LEGEND SUBBASIN OUTUNE - CONVEYANCE REACH CITY OF RENTON aril" driTtiKvALA EMBASSY SUITES ANDYS DINER PUGET POWER SUBSTATION FIGURE #4 NELSON BASIN HYDROLOGY sv CONSTRUCTED WETLANDS 77_ 4111111 SCALE 1" = 400'± Th- DETENTION POND NORTHERN PACIFIC R MCLEOD EXHIBITION FACIUTY OLD NELSON FARM WEST VALLEY HIGHWiks( \DWG \ENGDWG \92\92034\FIG5 11=400 • :77 . OEM SCALE 1" = 400'± In" ,- r4'rr" tKING ler TRANSMISSION TOWER 61 WNW IMO IMO IMP NORTHERN PACIFIC RR MCLEOD EXHIBITION FACIUTY Lel EMBASSY SUITES 1.1 tj IMO 0 �_ SW 27TH ST CITY OF RENTON drr7 est- TJKWILA CHICAGO, MILWAUKEE ST PAUL PACIFIC RR ANDY'S DINER WEST VALLEY HIGHWAY PUGET POWER R/W PUGET POWER SUBSTATION \ � FIGURE #5 NELSON BASIN FUTURE DEVELOPMENT B. Computational Modeling of Basin The hydrological analysis has been performed in accordance with the King County Surface Water Design Manual (KCSWDM) using the Santa Barbara Urban Hydrograph Method, which is a modified SCS, single event storm drainage computational model. The version used for this study was "Water Works Software For Hydrology" developed by Engenious Systems of Seattle, Washington. A series of storm events were modeled, generating hydrographs, that upon routing through the storm drainage collection system provided both peak flows and hydrographs of the sub -basin discharges under different storm events. Storm hydrographs were generated using the SCS Type 1A distribution storm 24 hour hydrograph. From the KCSWDM isopluvial maps for westem King County, total rainfall depths were developed for the sub -basin for 2 -year, 10 -year, 25- year and 100 -year recurrence intervals. The sub - basin's runoff characteristics were described in accordance with the SCS "curve number" values characterized as Urban Modified Soils, and as group D. The sub - basin's smaller, constituent basins' were further utilized to synthesize individual hydrographs for each basin unit, and these hydrographs were routed through the conveyance channels and pipes. The pre- and post- development hydrographs are tested to examine the impact of the cumulative effects of development and the effect of the system improvements. CRITERIA FREQUENCY OF EVENT TOTAL PRECIPITATION Water Quality 2 year, 24 hour storm 1.95 inches Conveyance 10 year, 24 hour storm 2.85 inches Conveyance 25 year, 24 hour storm 3.35 inches Conveyance and Flood Control 100 -year, 24 hour storm 3.9 inches 3-2 \rp92 \tukwila.doc For water quality facility design purposes in sizing of water quality wet ponds and biofiltration systems, the 2 -year, 24 -hour storm event is used. To achieve the required runoff control, the 2 -year and 10 -year storms peak rates are tested to assure the post - developed flows do not increase beyond pre- existing conditions. The sub - basin's internal drainage systems and the proposed S.W. 16th Street storm outfall system are tested against the predicted 25 -year and 100 -year peak flow rates to assure the proper storm water capacity is provided in accordance with the KCSWDM requirements. The results of this hydrological analysis are attached in the appendix, and the peak storm discharges into the S.W. 16th Street storm drain are summarized below: FREQUENCY OF EVENT TOTAL 2 year, 24 hour storm 10 year, 24 hour storm 25 year, 24 hour storm 100 -year, 24 hour storm PRECIPITATION PREDEVELOP POST DEVELOP 1.95 inches 14.2 cfs 18.9 cfs 2.85 inches 23.4 cfs 29.5 cfs 3.35 inches 28.2 cfs 36.3 cfs 3.9 inches 33.91 cfs 42.7 cfs In review of the hydraulic model results, several items stand out: The basic drainage network for the Nelson Place /Longacres Way Sub -basin developed in the 1988 KCM report is generally sound. Specific ditch and culvert segments within the basin will require improvements and upgrades to avoid spot flooding problems, and strict adherence to the KCSWDM in design of future drainage improvements will insure proper implementation. The proposed outlet storm drain in S.W. 16th Street in Renton will have some capacity limitations during a 100 year storm event. To assure that peak 2- and 10 -year storm rates are held to pre - development rates, storm water detention is required specifically to accommodate the McLeod Development. The calculated volumes are: REQUIRED DETENTION VOLUMES FREQUENCY OF EVENT TOTAL PREDEVELOP POST DEVELOP REQUIRED VOLUMES 2 year, 24 hour storm 14.2 cfs 10 year, 24 hour storm 23.4 cfs 18.9 cfs 29.5 cfs 25,067 cubic feet 43,616 cubic feet 3 -3 \rp92 \tukwilo.doc In accordance with the KCSWDM Core Requirements, these calculated volumes must be further increased by a 30% factor of safety. The resulting detention vol- ume required at the entrance to the new S.W. 16th Street Storm Drain is: 56,700 cubic feet. This detention volume is accommodated by the proposed McLeod project site's 2 -cell detention pond with 10,213 cubic feet of storage, and 16 -line detention in the large swale amounting to 45,500 cubic feet of storage. The total provided detention storage is 61,700 cf which exceeds the required volume. C. Identify Problem Areas 1. S.W. 16th Street Storm Drain Implementation of the proposed S.W. 16th Street Storm Drain is the final major element in completion of the storm drainage plan for the Nelson Place /Longacres Way Sub - Basin. While this storm sewer is the primary outlet for the Sub - basin, it is supplemented by the proposed connection through the Boeing CSTC site drainage system. The Boeing CSTC site drainage will accept 18 cfs when the storm system surcharges to an ele- vation of 13.0 or above on the west side of the BNRR tracks. We have investigated the original design of a 48" diameter storm drain, and an alternative smaller diameter combined gravity and pumped storm drain. Both design configurations must have the capability to convey the Nelson Place /Longacres Way Sub -basin 100 -year storm flows under all possible water surface elevations in Springbrook Creek, and have the flexibility to handle higher Springbrook Creek water elevations if the HSPF Hydraulic model for the ESGRWP is revised in the future. The proposed storm drain along S.W. 16th Street has been previously configured as a 48" storm drain in the previous KCM 1988 study. As a result of the changes in the ESGRWP initiated by the City of Renton, this report has reexamined this proposed storm drain's operation and design. The proposed storm drain is impacted by the different operational stages of the Springbrook Creek /P -1 system. With the S.W. 16th Street inlets and outlet elevations fixed by ground elevations and the Springbrook 3 -4 \rp92 \tukwila.doc Channel, the storm system will be influenced by these different Springbrook Creek water surface elevations: Current land use, 100 -year storm with existing channel & In Storage Mode: el. 8.84 feet Current land use, 100 -year storm with existing channel & In Conveyance Mode: el. 9.91 feet Future land use, 100 -year storm with existing channel & In Storage Mode: el. 13.04 feet Future land use, 100 -year storm with existing channel & in Conveyance Mode: el. 10.52 feet Because the S.W. 16th Street Storm drain ouffall into Springbrook Creek has been previously constructed with the replacement of the S.W. 16th Street Bridge, the ouffall elevation is fixed at elevation 5.0 U.S.G.S. During normal operation of Springbrook Creek, the P -1 BRPS is operated to hold water elevations in the Forebay at or around elevation 0.0. Water sur- face elevations at the S.W. 16th Street Bridge will stay below the pro- posed storm drain outlet elevation of 5.0 , and the storm drain will oper- ate in open channel flow. When water surface elevations in Springbrook Creek at S.W. 16th St. rise above elevation 5.0, the proposed storm drain will experience tail water effects that will reduce the capacity of the storm drain. The S.W. 16th St. storm drain will function adequately under many storm and flood conditions. However, in the future, as the Valley develops, and under conditions of storm events, the S.W. 16th St. storm drain will experience capacity constraints. These conditions were hydraulically modeled, examining the S.W. 16th St. storm drainage performance during a 100 year storm, with Springbrook Creek in its' predicted high water, storage mode resulting in a tail water surface elevation of 13.04. The capacity limits in the S.W. 16th St. storm 3 -5 \rp92 \tukwila.doc drain will result in some ponding in the McLeod site, which we believe will range approximately between 15.5 and 16.0. The proposed S.W. 16th Street Storm Drain design could be modified to improve its' operation under tail water conditions, and to reduce flooding during a 100 year storm in the McLeod site. Utilization of a fusion welded polyethylene pipe system will allow pressure operation, and provide a minimum of pipe friction and will result in minimizing the headwater build up on the McLeod Site. By eliminating manhole structures and providing 'T -top" 48 -inch vertical access tee's, a minimum head Toss storm system can be designed. The proposed S.W. 16th Street Storm drain can be constructed with 48" diameter P.E. storm pipe and utilize low head access structures. In all cases; however, the proposed 48" gravity storm sewer can hold water surface elevations in the McLeod site to Tess than 16' during 100 -year storm events in the Springbrook basin. As an altemative, a smaller storm drain in the S.W. 16th Street corridor has been reviewed, using an auxiliary storm pump station in the McLeod site which would pump into the new S.W. 16th Street storm system under either peak flows from the Nelson Place /Longacres Way Sub -basin or peak tail water conditions in Springbrook. This altemative system would have these constituent parts: a. Boeing CSTC Drain connection configured to accept 18 cfs b. New S.W. 16th Street Storm Drain 24" diameter PE storm drain with pressure tight capped tee's in manhole access. Storm capacity gravity flow without tail water condition at Springbrook = 18 cfs. Storm Capacity in pumped pressure flow = 25 cfs. c. New Storm Pump Station in McLeod Site for pumping approxi- mately all storm in excess to 2 -year flows. Pump Capacity = 25 cfs. 3 -6 \rp92 \tukwila.doc / I / / CONSTRUCTED 1 / WETLANDS i i 77, 41MIC SCALE 1" = 400'± �IEV�t .$dEiWG ' i -'.STC BAG.. ;•r-- DETENTION POND DISCHARGE TO BOEING CSTC DETENTION POND UMI'TED TO 18 CFS - NORTHERN PACIFIC RR MCLEOD EXHIBITION FACIUTY WEST VALLEY H WAY SCALE 1" = 400'± ISCHARGE TO BOEING CSTC =TENT1ON POND IJMI'TED ) 18 CFS ' ARKING CO NORTHERN PACIFIC RR MCLEOD EXHIBITION FACIUTY WM. IMMD J CITY OF RENTON diir7 a g7JKWILA CHICAGO. MILWAUKEE ST PAUL PACIFIC RR PUGET POWER SUBSTATION WEST VAU_EY H WAY FIGURE #6 NELSON BASIN PROPOSED SW 16TH ST 48" STORM DRAIN CONSTRUCTED WETLANDS PROPOSED SW 161H ST STORM DRAIN DETENTION \� POND ■ 77 4111E11 SCALE 1" = 400'± DISCHARGE TO BOEING CSTC DETENTION POND LIMITED TO 18 CFS NEW PARKING NORTHERN PACIFIC I MCLEOD EXHIBITION FACIUTY OLD NELSON FARM EMBASSY SUITES inn ANDYS DINER WEST VALLEY HIGHWAY \DWG \ENGDWG \92 \92034 \FIG7 1 =400 7,7 Amic SCALE 1" = 400'± CHARGE TO BOEING CSTC iENTION POND LIMI1ED 18 CFS 'ROPOSED STORM )RAIN PUMP STA. :INC NORTHERN PACIFIC RR MCLEOD EXHIBITION FACILITY tel CITY OF RENTON diT$ 6`'ThKWILA CHICAGO, MILWAUKEE ST PAUL PACIFIC RR PUGET POWER SUBSTATION YWAY WEST VALLEY FIGURE #7 NELSON BASIN PROPOSED SW 16TH ST SMALL STORM DRAIN d. The new pump and gravity storm system can hold water surface elevations to 14.0 in the McLeod site during 100 -year storm events in the Springbrook basin. This proposed combined pumped and gravity flow storm system does have a lower construction cost for the pipe line; however, the reliability of a pump system is considerably less than a gravity flow system and should be avoided. 2. Internal Sub -Basin Storm Improvements The Nelson Place /Longacres Way Sub -basin intemal drainage has been substantially improved since the adoption of the 1988 storm drainage plan by KCM. As evident from that report and from field observations, there are still several problem areas that will require future improvements or planning: Nelson Dairy This area labeled a2 in the basin exhibit map, is poorly drained from it's location north of 1 -405 and S.W. Grady Way, and storm water runoff runs southeasterly under the UPRR tracks and into the McLeod site, thence sheet flowing to the 18" culvert crossing under the BNRR tracks. This area is low lying and will not gravity flow to the Green River unless filled. To continue the present draining path into the Nelson Place /Longacres Sub - Basin, an improved drainage ditch system is required across the McLeod site to the UPRR old cattle undercrossing. Providing this improved channel way will accommodate any future redevelopment of the Nelson Dairy site without negatively impacting the McLeod devel- opment at some later date. Industrial Crate and Packing This site is planned to drain south behind Mueller Brass, John's Fumiture and A &J Welding to the storm drainage box culvert in S. 158th Street. The proposed improvement in the 1988 KCM plan is a southward flowing 30" and 24" storm pipeline. Because of the relatively shallow construction of the box culvert in S. 158th Street, 3 -7 \rp92 \tukwila.doc TABLE #2 CONSTRUCTION COST OPINIONS S.W. 16TH STREET STORM DRAIN COMPARING THE RECOMMENDED AND ALTERNATIVE DESIGNS Total Unit description Quantity Unit Unit Price Price RECOMMENDED DESIGN: 48" GRAVITY STORM SEWER 48" DI S.D. 383 LF $235 $90,005 48" RCP SD 1516 LF $180 $272,880 96" Storm MH 5 EA $7,000 $35,000 Storm Check Valve 1 EA $15,000 $15,000 Subtotal $412,885 Contingencies 15% $61,933 Construction Observation 17% $70,190 BN R/R Under Crossing L.S. $181,600 $181,600 GRAND TOTAL $726,608 ALTERNATIVE DESIGN: 24 "STORM DRAIN AND STORM WATER PUMP STATION 24" HDPE S.D. 1900 LF $99 $188,100 48" Storm MH 5 EA $4,500 $22,500 Storm Check Valve 1 EA $5,000 $5,000 Storm Pump Station 1 EA $133,550 $133,550 Subtotal $349,150 Contingencies 15% $52,373 Construction Observation 17% $59,356 BN R/R Under Crossing L.S. $120,000 $120,000 GRAND TOTAL $580,878 Note: For Planning Purposes, Street Restoration and professional design services costs are not included. the relatively shallow construction of the box culvert in S. 158th Street, there is insufficient grade for a deep installation of the future storm pipe- line. In addition there may be an existing storm culvert under the UPRR tracks behind the Industrial Crate and Packing site draining into the McLeod site, but somehow covered by deep brush and debris. It is our recommendation that a drainage easement be reserved across the McLeod site to accommodate the future construction of a storm outlet for the Industrial Crate site, which may be utilized if elevation problems develop upon implementation of the future south flowing 30" and 24" storm pipeline along the UPRR tracks. McLeod Exhibition Facility The proposed McLeod Exhibition Center Development has included within the site development several impor- tant drainage improvements for the Nelson Place /Longacres Way Sub - basin. The proposed drainage swale and culvert improvements included ,_. within the McLeod Drainage Report and Plan have been reviewed, found to be sound improvements, and should be implemented. The proposed storm detention volume in the McLeod Drainage Report totals . 61,700 cf which exceeds the required 56,700 cubic feet. The existing storm drainage improvements implemented in accordance with the 1988 Storm Drainage Plan have been reviewed and tested against their performance in 2, 10, and 25 year storm events. All these storm systems have adequate conveyance capacity. D. Compliance with the King County Surface Water Design Manual (KCSWDM) The proposed Nelson Place /Longacres Way Sub -basin Surface Water Manage- ment Plan has been examined for it's compliance with the requirements in the KCSWDM. The appropriate sections are reproduced in the Appendix. The compliance with relevant sections of the KCSWDM are discussed below: 3-8 \rp92 \tukwilo.doc Core Requirement #1 Discharge at the Natural Location The proposed installation of the new S.W. 16th Street Storm Sewer as the new primary outlet for the Nelson Place /Longacres Way Sub -basin is a slight modifi- cation from this core requirement. The existing 24" and 18" storm outfall location will be generally preserved in the new Boeing CSTC site drainage improvements; however, the new S.W. 16th Street Storm drain will be configured to be the pri- mary outlet from the sub - basin, and the storm flow through the Boeing CSTS site will occur only under peak storm events. This proposed change moves the out- let approximately 450' north, and downstream from the present outlet. This change is consistent with the revised ESGRWS project plan as developed by R.W. Beck. Compliance with the adopted master basin plan and the relative minor nature of this location change make this an acceptable action. The Nelson Place /Longacres Way Sub -basin plan is in general compliance with Core Requirement #1. Core Requirement #3 Runoff Control The KCSWDM requires peak storm water runoff control and is applied in a gen- eral case with: • Biofiltration and Water Quality Control - 2 -year /24 -hour duration • Peak Rate Runoff Control 100 -year Conveyance and 10 -year pre- develop- ment allowable release rate Direct discharge is allowed if a regional facility can handle the storm flows and water quality controls are met. The Nelson Place /Longacres Way Sub -basin plan meets Core Requirement #3. 3 -9 \►p92 \tukwila,doc Core Requirements #4 Conveyance New storm drainage systems must convey the 100 -year storm within the storm system without roadway flooding. However, if roadway flooding occurs, no building flooding shall be allowed. New pipe systems must convey the 25 -year storm and open channels must convey the 25 -year with 0.5 foot freeboard. The Nelson Place /Longacres Way Sub -basin plan meets Core Requirement #4. Special Requirement #2 Compliance with an Existing Master Drainage plan The Nelson Place /Longacres Way Sub -basin lies within the Green River basin, and is subject to the overall management goals of the Green River Manage- ment Agreement. As outlined in that agreement, no storm pump discharges will be released from the Nelson Place /Longacres Way Sub -basin directly to the Green River, and all drainage will be routed to the Springbrook Creek for con- veyance to the P -1 BRPS for storage and /or discharge to the Green. The Nelson Place /Longacres Way Sub -basin lies within the larger East Side Green River Water Shed Project, which under the City of Renton's initiative has been modified in the ESGRWP reports prepared by R.W. Beck. These studies form the framework of the regional master drainage plan for the entire east side of the Green River Valley. The Nelson Place /Longacres Way Sub -basin past and cur- rent drainage planning has been prepared in accordance with the larger ESGRW Project plan. This revision and update to the Nelson Place /Longacres Way Sub -basin Drainage Plan has incorporated the master planning criteria for the Green River Management Plan and the newest ESGRW project work and has strictly held to the program goals of these standards. The Nelson Place /Longacres Way Sub -basin plan meets Special Requirement #2. 3 -10 \rp92 \tukwila.doc Special Requirement #5 Special Water Quality Controls In concurrence with the criteria established in Special Requirement #5, the Nelson Place /Longacres Way Sub -basin will utilize water quality controls on the basin storm water flows discharging to the S.W. 16th Street Storm Drain. A regional wet pond at the north end of the proposed McLeod north parking lot, and the implementation of the proposed swale /ditch systems with wetland biofiltration characteristics are recommended. The Nelson Place /Longacres Way Sub -basin plan meets Special Requirement #5. Special Reauirement #9 Delineation of 100 year Flood Plain The City of Renton's consultant work by R.W. Beck and North West Hydraulics has developed a new, proposed 100 -flood plain and limits area; however, until the hydraulic model is revised again as recommended by N.W. Hydraulics and R.W. Beck, there will continue to be an unacceptable range of uncertainty. This re- study work should be performed by the City of Renton. There is provided in the FEMA internal processes a method to achieve a modifi- cation of the current FEMA Flood Plain Determination, and this could be done with the future Renton ESGRW study work. However, since the current ESGRWP work is not judged adequate for adoption by the consultants and City of Renton, Tukwila's administrative direction is very clear; a. Tukwila must administer the FEMA flood plain rules until they are modified, using el. 16.4 feet as the 100 -year flood elevation in the sub - basin. b. Administer the flood plain elevation rule similar to Renton's and use a 1 foot freeboard above the 100 -year flood elevation level. This yields a finished floor elevation of 17.4 feet for 100 -year flood elevation protec- tion. c. Require compensatory storage when filling below the 100 -year flood ele- vation of 16.4 feet; however, this storage volume should be provided below elevation 13.0 to be usable for any real flood attenuation. 3 -11 \rp92 \tukwila.doc The Nelson Place /Longacres Way Sub -basin plan is in compliance with Special Requirement #9. E. Conclusions and Recommendations This report's review of the previous Nelson Place /Longacres Way Sub -basin drainage planning and proposed future storm improvements has shown the previous work to be generally sound and appropriate for the area. To reduce the tail water effects of the Springbrook Creek water surface elevation changes into the Nelson Place /Longacres Way Sub -basin plan will require some modification to the proposed design of the S.W. 16th Street Storm Interceptor. The uncertainties of the HSPF model of the ESGRWP will require it's re- analysis with the more recent storm records. The possible range of elevations to be expected in the Springbrook Creek during the 100 -year flow events will most cer- tainly increase above the values determined in the previous studies. These negative impacts on Tukwila can be avoided or reduced by increasing the P -1 channel capacity and storage capacity by finishing the partially completed segment between S.W. 16th Street, under 1 -405 and S.W. Grady Way. The City of Tukwila should encourage this channel link be completed as soon as possible. The proposed storm drainage improvements in the McLeod Exhibition Develop- ment are generally consistent with both the sub -basin plan and KCSWDM and should be implemented. The storm detention volume in the McLeod Develop- ment site meet and exceed the minimum requirements of 56,700 cubic feet. The FEMA flood plain elevation of 16.4 and the resulting minimum finished floor height of 17.4 should be enforced until a revision is approved by FEMA. 3 -12 \rp92 \tukwila.doe SECTION 4 - UPDATE NELSON PLACE /LONGACRES WAY STORM DRAINAGE PLAN A. Identify Storm Water Facility Needs • Construct the new S.W. 16th Street Storm Sewer as a 48" diameter gravity storm sewer. • Construct the proposed Boeing CSTC storm connection to allow storm water to flow into the Boeing CSTC site when drainage water rises to ele- vation 13.0 on the McLeod site. • Construct the miscellaneous drainage improvements for the Nelson Place /Longacres Way Sub -basin in accordance with the KCM 1988 Drainage Report. • Complete construction of the P -1 Channel improvements from S.W. 16th Street to S.W. Grady Way to increase the channel conveyance capacity and storage volumes below the Nelson Place /Longacres Way Sub - basin. B. McLeod Development Requirements • Construct on -site drainage improvements as proposed in the McLeod Exhibition Facility Drainage Analysis Eastside Consultants, Aug. 1992. These include: • New improved and widened drainage channel along the west side of the BNRR tracks incorporating bio -swale wetland design elements per KCSWDM. • New drainage channel improvements to the north end of the McLeod site to intercept drainage from the Nelson Farm basin area 'a2' to the new ouffall pipe system to S.W. 1 6th Street. 4 -1 \rp92 \tukwila.doc • Provide easement for possible future storm extension across the north parking lot from the outfall pipe system connection with S.W. 16th Street, westerly to the UPRR tracks opposite the Industrial Crate facility. • Implement the current FEMA 100 -year flood plain regulations. Require compensating storage be provided for filling in the 100 - year flood plain below elevation 16.4. Require elevation above the 100 -year flood plain for all insured structures, provide 1 -foot of freeboard which yields a finished floor elevation of 17.4 . • Provide storm water detention to control discharges to pre developed rates. Implement the project plan which will provide a storm detention volume in excess of 56.700 cubic feet in size. C. Potential LID Formation With the upcoming development of the McLeod Convention Project, almost all of the basin storm drainage improvements within the Nelson Basin will be constructed. The two remaining elements from the original KCM Plan are: • The storm drain behind Industrial Crate, Mueller Brass, John's Furniture and A &L Welding. This is proposed as a 24" and 30" diameter storm drain. • The new 48" storm undercrossing of the BNRR tracks from the McLeod site to the new S.W. 16th Street 48" storm sewer to be constructed by the Boeing CSTC project. { The proposed storm drain serving the Industrial Crate, etc. industrial block has very specific local benefit. The property owners have not expressed any strong interest in investing in a new storm drain. Without strong support, formation of an LID or ULID for their specific benefit will not be viable. This project is more Iappropriate for implementation on an incremental basis by the individual property owners. 4 -2 \rp92 \tukwila.doc The major 48" storm undercrossing under the BNRR tracks is more critical and of general benefit to the Nelson Basin properties. This project element is an appropriate subject for implementation through the formation of an LID or ULID. We have evaluated the formation of an LID for the 48" storm crossing under the BNRR, and it appears to be legally viable if formed by City Council resolution. The storm drainage construction design services and construction inspection costs have been estimated at $227,000. To provide allowance for LID formation costs, an overall project cost estimate of $300,000 is used in our preliminary evaluation. A preliminary assessment roll has been prepared, prorating the project costs among the properties in the Nelson Basin on an area or square foot basis. Using an area method of cost proration most closely fits the individual properties contribution of storm water runoff, and their proportional cost contribution. Please note that this preliminary assessment roll does not include the leased properties on the Puget Power utility right -of- way. the development of correct assessments against these lease holders on Puget Power right -of -way should be developed by the City's Legal Office and is outside of our firm's ability to resolve. Nevertheless, the preliminary assessment roll provides general guidance on the relative cost assessments for various properties. The McLeod site will absorb over half of the project costs, and all other properties assessments range from less than $3,000 to approximately $32,000. 4 -3 \rp92 \tukwila.doc TABLE #3 TUKWILA NELSON PLACE /MCLEOD STORM SEWER LID PRELIMINARY LID ASSESSMENT ROLE AREA TOTAL PERCENT PROJECT TAX LOT CURRENT USE SQ. FT. SQ. FT. OF ROLE ASSESSMENT 73 HAMPTON INN 31,522 14 11,503 57 19,827 43 19,766 82,618 4.89% $14,678 11 RENTON WELDING 23,345 23,345 1.38% $4,148 32 ABANDONED 25,230 14 GAS STATION 13,144 38,374 2.27% $6,818 34 SERVICE 39,774 39,774 2.36% $7,066 AMERICA 25 EASY RIDER 24,338 24,338 1.44% $4,324 28 TOUMA ENGR. 35 DANIEL 26 BOONE PAINTS 24 EMBASSY 31 SUITES 12 OLD AUCTION BARN 29 A &L WELDING TELE. RELAY 23 JOHN'S FURNATURE 88 MUELLER BRASS 90 INDUSTRIAL CRATE 34 MCLEOD 216,041 13 435,600 21 106,722 15,500 15,500 0.92% $2,754 19,895 20,175 40,070 2.37% $7,119 145,223 35,678 180,901 10.71% $32,140 40,548 40,548 2.40% $7,204 38,251 38,251 2.27% $6,796 65,460 65,460 3.88% $11,630 44,444 44,444 2.63% $7,896 149,350 149,350 8.84% $26,534 6 147,232 905,595 53.63% $160,893 SUBTOTAL AREA 1,688,568 PROJECT COST STORM UNDER X -ING UNDER BN RAILROAD 100.00% $300,000 APPENDIX A REFERENCES APPENDIX A REFERENCES Anderson, Bjomstad, Kane, Jacobs, Inc., June 1989. Private Storm Drain System of Helen Nelson on So. 158th Street. R.W. Beck Inc., October 1991, Eastside Green River Watershed Plan Current Conditions Document. R.W. Beck Inc., December 1991, Eastside Green River Watershed Plan Project Summary Document. R.W. Beck Inc., March 1992, Eastside Green River Watershed Plan Hydraulic Analysis Report, Existing Drainage System. R.W. Beck, Inc., July 1992, City of Renton Boeing CSTC Floodplain Analysis Review. Centrac, Inc., September 1989, Storm Drain System Calculations, Hampton Inn. Centrac Inc., June 1988, So. 156th and Nelson Place Roadway and Drainage Civil Design Plans. Eastside Consultants, Inc., March 1992, McLeod Exhibition Facility Civil Design Plans. Eastside Consultants, Inc., August 1992, McLeod Exhibition Facility, Tukwila, Washington, Drainage Analysis Eastside Consultants, Inc., Letter to HCW -L dated December 22, 1992. Federal Emergency Management Agency, September 29, 1989, Flood Insurance Rate Map Kramer, Chin and Mayo, Inc., June 1988, Nelson Place /Longacres Way Storm Drainage System Preliminary Design Northwest Hydraulic Consultants, Inc., December 1991, Eastside Green River Watershed Hydrologic Analysis. City of Renton Department of Public Works, 1987, Overall SCS P -1 and P -9 Channel Preliminary and Design Plans. Sverdrup Corporation, Inc., April 1992, Customer Services Training Center Site Development, Technical Information Report on the Flood Plain /Storm Water System. Touma Engineers, Inc., December 1990, So. 158th Street Storm Drainage System As- Builts. \rp92 \tukwila•doc APPENDIX B FEMA REFERENCES FL INSURANCE STUDY • • - x'.•i't: •!at4._ •? +, .KING COON' WASHINGT AND_INCORPORATED'ARE VOLUME 1-OF: COMMUNITY • AUBURN. CITY OF ..... . LAKE FOREST PARK, CITY OF 530082 NORMANDY PARK. CITY OF 530084 • NORTH BEND, CITY OF 530085 • • PACIFIC. CITY OF 530086 REDMOND. CITY OF'- 530087 RENTON, CITY OF 530088 SEATTLE. CITY OF 530089 ' SKYKOMISH, TOWN OF ' 530236 SNOQUALMIE, CITY OF 530090 - TUKWILA. CITY OF 530091 COMMUNITY:- " : • :. 530073 .. • REVISED: SEPTEMBER 29,1989 Federal . Emergency Management Agenc ry %: • - i: L4r1;G;_eRLs`�r Cu/verl \ • DATED: SEPT 29TH, 1989 100 YEAR FLOOD PLAIN INDICATED BY SHADING HAMMOND, -ZONE AHI EL 1 6 ) ZONE X z• I COLLIER & WADE — LIVINGSTONE CITY ( EXHIBIT #1 FEMA FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP ASSOCIATES. INC. FLOODING SOURCE FLOODWAY BASE FLOOD WATER SURFACE ELEVATION CROSS SICTION DISTANCET WIIIIII (Iiti) SECTION AREA (SQUARE FEET) MEAN VEt OCIIY (FELT PER SECOND) RIGUTAIORY 'NOHOW 1 E IOOL�WAY (11E1 WIT11 It OOUWAY NCVI)) It1CRLASE Springbrook N .T to Ci sD O O C'1 in C1 N •--.1 ONO O •-8 CO N VD .T sD N ch in O . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . • • • C7 ..D N N sD .i —+ en N •+ r', .7 N N .7 N en C7 N .-r N .-+ •--0 .r N .--I Creek A 0.00 74 342 15.0 6.5 7.5 1.0 B 0.07 26 173 15.0 7.0 7.6 0.6 C 0.16 76 436 15.0 7.8 8.7 0.9 D 0.17 67 380 15.0 7.8 8.8 1.0 E 0.32 37 168 15.0 8.7 9.1 0.4 F 0.41 48 274 15.0 10.0 11.0 1.0 C 0.49 11 100 15.0 11.4 12.4 1.0 H 0.55 25 331 16.4 15.5 15.9 0.4 I 0.57 39 440 16.4 15.5 16.1 0.6 J 0.59 59 576 16.4 15.6 16.2 0.6 K 0.63 28 346 16.4 15.6 16.2 0.6 L 0.67 24 270 16.4 15.6 16.2 0.6 M 1.25 50 439 15.8 15.8 16.3 0.5 N 1.49 83 638 16.0 16.0 16.6 0.6 0 1.62 25 297 16.0 16.0 16.7 0.7 P 1.99 63 581 16.6 16.6 17.4 0.8 Q 2.57 44 325 17.0 17.0 17.9 0.9 R 2.61 43 383 17.3 17.3 18.2 0.9 S 2.67 56 476 17.4 17.4 18.3 0.9 T 2.76 88 881 17.6 17.6 18.5 0.9 U 3.03 80 477 17.8 17.8 18.8 1.0 V 3.17 70 561 18.0 18.0 19.0 1.0 W 3.49 75 520 18.2 18.2 19.2 1.0 X 3.80 88 453 18.6 18.6 19.6 1.0 Y 3.95 59 328 19.2 19.2 20.2 1.0 1Miles Above Mouth T A B L E 4 FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY KING COUNTY, WA AND INCORPORATED AREAS FLOODWAY DATA SPRINGBROOK CREEK APPENDIX C HYDRAULIC MODEL OUTPUT TABULATIONS APPENDIX C HYDRAULIC MODEL OUTPUT TABULATIONS MODEL OUTPUT OF 2, 10, 25 AND 100 YEAR STORM EVENTS IN THE NELSON PL. BASIN. These model runs were developed to review the intemal storm water system behaviour of the Nelson PI. Basin under different storm events. These storm events were generated by the Santa Barbara Urban Hydrograph method, in accordance with the King County Surface Water Design Manual. The storm water routing network is shown schematically in Figure #3 and #4 which are reproduced here for reference. No significant capacity problems became evident in this technical review, and adequate water quality protection is provided by biofiltration in accordance with the KCSWDM. • EXISTING LONGACRES STORM WATER PUMP STATION its SCALE 1' - 400'± EXISTING STORM DRAIN TO SPRINGBROOK CREEK BARN AREA L O N G A C R E S T R A C K PARKING ',400" PARKING DITCH BURLINGTON F I E L D BOX CULVERT 4. -8' WIDE x 1' -10' HIGH NORTHERN RR PTV OF RENTON Cr?' a i iKWILA CHICAGO. MILWAUKEE ST PAUL PACIFIC RR PUGET POWER R/W OLD NELSON FARM "...\\ \DWG \ENGOWO \92 \92034 \FIC3 1.400 WEST VAurf HIGH** HAMPTON INN 18' SD 24' SD \HAMPTON INN STORM WATER PUMP & FORCEMAIN 233 GPM PUGET POWER SUBSTATION FIGURE #3 NELSON BASIN EXIST DRAINAGE CONDITIONS . • EXISTING STORM DRAIN TO SPRINGEIROOK BARN AREA 4111111E SCALE 1" 400t t NP1 PARKING AN1 "...... \ \ DWG \ ENGOWG \ 92 \ 92034 \ F1G4 I .-400 ci( 5---cri. \i, IN i .1 - -- rz, ---------------------- ----- EMBASSY SUITES DINER _v... , .(. SI CHICAGO. MILWAUKEE ST PAUL PACIFIC RR N LEGEND SUBBASIN °MUNE CONVEYANCE REACH CITY OF RENTON ar7 1UK%MLA Pt/GET POWER SUBSTATION FIGURE #4 NELSON BASIN HYDROLOGY OCT-25-92 S U N 10:50 H C W 8. L A a a o c (Ch. 1 a n? P-05 10/22/92 HCWL Ino - Chelan page 1 TUKWILA STORM DRAINAGE ANALYSIS EXISTING CONDITIONS FOR THE 100YR - 24HR STORM EVENT PRECIPITATION EQUALS 3.9 INCHES BASIN ID: BA25 SBUH METHODOLOGY TOTAL AREA • 8.98 Acres RAINFALL TYPE TYPEIA PRECIPITATION 3.90 inches TIME INTERVAL 10.00 in TIME OF CONC • 49.40 min ABSTRACTION 00EFF: 0.20 BASIN SUMMARY NAME: Pre - Development Conditions BASEFLOWS: 0.00 cfs PERVIOUS AREA AREA..: 8.50 Acree CN 90.00 IMPERVIOUS AREA AREA..: 0.48 Acrea CN • 98.00 TcReach - Sheet L: 260.00 ne:0.1500 p2yr: 1.95 s :0.0150 TcReaoh - Channel L :1070.00 ko:17.00 s:0.0030 PEAK RATE: 3.72 cfs VOL: 2.16 Ac -ft TIME: 490 min BASIN ID: NP25 SBUH METHODOLOGY TOTAL AREA 10.80 Acres RAINFALL TYPE TYPE1A PRECIPITATION 3.90 inches TIME INTERVAL 10.00 min TIME OF CONC • 61.82 min ABSTRACTION COEBF: 0.20 NAME: Pre - Development Conditions TaReach - Sheet L: 300.00 ThReach - Channel L: 900.00 PEAK RATE: 3.93 cfs VOL: BASIN ID: SP25 SBUH METHODOLOGY TOTAL AREA 8.34 Acres RAINFALL TYPE TYPE1A PRECIPITATION 3.90 inches TIME INTERVAL 10.00 in TIME OF CONC 168.99 min BASEFLOWS: 0.00 ofs PERVIOUS AREA AREA..: 10.00 Acres CN • 89.00 IMPERVIOUS AREA AREA..: 0.80 Acres CN • 98.00 no:0.1500 p2yr: 1.96 0:0.0150 ko:17.00 8:0.0010 2.32 Ac -ft TIME: 490 min NAME: Pre - Development Conditions BASEFLOWS: 0.00 cfs PERVIOUS AREA AREA..: 8.00 Acres CN - 72.00 IMPERVIOUS AREA ABSTRACTION COEFF: 0.20 AREA..: 0.34 Acrea CN • 98.00 ToReach - Sheet L: 230.00 ns :0.8000 p2yr: 1.95 8:0.0150 TcReaah - Channel L: 700.00 kc:5.00 s:0.0014 PEAK RATE: 0.79 cfs VOL: 1.03 Ac-ft TIME: 660 min OCT- 2Z, --92 SLJN 1O S9 HCW 84 L Assoc. <Ch 1 an > P.O 10/22/92 HOWL Inc -- Chelan TUKWILA STORM DRAINAGE ANALYSIS EXISTING CONDITIONS FOR THE 100YR - 24HR STORM EVENT PRECIPITATION EQUALS 3.9 INCHES page 2 r: BASIN ID: a14 SBUH METHODOLOGY TOTAL AREA • RAINFALL TYPE PRECIPITATION • TIME INTERVAL • TIME OF CONC • ABSTRACTION COEFF: TcReach - Sheet TcReach - Channel PEAK RATE: 3.87 BASIN ID: a2 SBUH METHODOLOGY TOTAL AREA • RAINFALL TYPE • TTPRECIPIITATION • E it: 61*T88g8L .. . ABSTRACTION COEFF: TcReach -• Sheet PEAK RATE: 2.82 BASIN ID: a5a SBUH METHODOLOGY TOTAL AREA • RAINFALL TYPE • PRECIPITATION. • TIME INTERVAL • TIME OF CONC ABSTRACTION COEFF: • TcReaoh - Sheet TcReach - Shallow TcReach - Channel PEAK RATE: 3.93 BASIN SUMMARY NAME: 7.00 Acres TYPE1A 3.90 inches 10.00 min 39.88 min 0.20 BASEFLOWS: 0.00 oft PERVIOUS AREA AREA..: 1.05 Acres CN • 92.00 IMPERVIOUS AREA AREA..: 5.95 Acres CN • 98.00 L: 200.00 ns:0.1500 p2yr: 1.95 8:0.01b0 L: 700.00 ko:17.00 8:0.0020 oft VOL: 2.0B Ac -ft TIME: 490 min NAME: 5.00 Acres TYPE1A 3.90 inches 38.68-2n"" 0.20 BASEFLOWS: 0.00 of PERVIOUS AREA AREA..: 0.75 Acres IMPERVIOUS AREP AREA..: 4.25 Acres CN • 98.00 L: 500.00 n8:0.1000 p2yr: 1.95 8:0.0150 cfs VOL: 1.49 Ac -ft TIME: 490 min NAME: 8.30 Acres TYPE1A 3.90 inches 10.00 min 62.28 in BASEFLOWS: 0. PERVIOUS AREA AREA1. CN 92. IMPERVIOUS AREA 00 cf8 25 Acres 00 0.20 AREA..: 7.05 Acres CN • 98.00 L: 300.00 ns:0.1500 p2yr: 1.95 8:0.0100 L: 300.00 ka:13.00 8:0.0100 L: 760.00 kc:17.00 8:0.0017 cfs VOL: 2.47 Ac -ft TIME 490 min _ OCT -2M -92 SUN 11 :00 HCW S L Assoc. <Ch 1 an > P. 0T 10/22/02 ilfwLJZ. _ nee TD A �I A A T V C T C TUKWILA GTO 4 somra Yaa�nuauiu��L�Q EXISTING CONDITIONS nn*+ nn�+ 100YR - 24HR WORM SWINT EXISTING QVA tli���•� PRECIPITATION EQUALS S.9 iivunab r►aeo 3 BASIN ID: a5b SBUH METHODOLOGY TOTAL AREA RAINFALL TYPE PRECIPITATION TIME INTERVAL TIME OF CONC ABSTRACTION COEFF: TcReach - Sheet ToReaoh - Channel PEAK RATE: 5.02 BASIN ID: a7a SBUH METHODOLOGY TOTAL AREA RAINFALL TYPE • PRECIPITATION • TIME INTERVAL • TIME OF CONC • ABSTRACTION COEFF: • ToReaoh - Sheet PEAK RATE: 2.45 BASIN ID: alb SBUH METHODOLOGY TOTAL AREA • RAINFALL TYPE PRECIPITATION TIME INTERVAL TIME OF CONC ABSTRACTION COEFF: BASIN SUMMARY NAME: 6.90 Acres TYPB1A 3.90 inches 10.00 min 14.72 in 0.20 BASEFLOWS: 0.00 cfe PERVIOUS AREA AREA..: 1.03 Acres CN • 92.00 IMPERVIOUS AREA AREA5.87 Acres CN • 98.00 L: 600.00 ns:0.0110 p2yr: 1.85 s:0.0020 L: 220.00 ko:67.00 s:0.0086 cis VOL: 2.05 Ac -ft TIME: 480 min NAIL: 3.20 Acres TYPEIA 3.90 inches 10.00 min 10.38 min 0.20 BASEFLOWS: 0.00 cfs PERVIOUS AREA AREA..: 0.48 Acres CN • 92.00 IMPERVIOUS AREA AREA..: 2.72 Acres CN - 98.00 L: 340.00 ns:0.0110 p2yr: 1.95 a:0.0020 cfs VOL: 0.95 Ac -ft TIME: 480 min NAME: 5.20 Acres TYPE1A 3.90 inches 10.00 in 11.82 min 0.20 BASEFLOWS: 0.00 cfs PERVIOUS AREA AREA..: 0.78 Acres CN • 92.00 IMPERVIOUS AREA AREA..: 4.42 Acres CN....: 98.00 TcReach - Sheet L: 400.00 ns:0.0110 p2yr: 1.95 s :0.0020 PEAK RATE: 3.S2 cfe VOL: 1.55 Ac -ft TIME: 480 min OCT-2 OCT-2-9 2 SUM 1 1: 0 1 H C W & L Assoc . < C h s l aar ? P. 08 10/22/92 HCWL Inc - Chelan TUKWI . A► STORM DRAINAME ANALYSIS EXISTING OONDITIONS FOR THE 100YR - 2t9B TO EVENT PRECIPITATXoU EQUALD ,.a ImmES page 4 BASIN ID: a9 SBUH METHODOLOGY TOTAL AREA RAINFALL TYPE PRECIPITATION TIME INTERVAL TIME OF CONC ABSTRACTION COEFB: TcReach - Sheet ToReaoh - Channel PEAK RATE: 8.17 BASIN SUMMARY NAME: 14.30 Acres TYPE1A 3.90 inches 10.00 min 36.29 min 0.20 BASEFLOWS: 0.00 PERVIOUS AREA AREA..: 2.15 CN 92.00 IMPERVIOUS AREA AREA..; 12.15 CN • 98.00 L: 200.00 ns:0.0110 p2yr: 1.95 8:0.0020 L:1300.00 kc:17.00 x:0.0020 ofs VOL: 4.25 Ac -ft TIME: 490 min cis Acres Acres OCT -2S -92 SUM 1 1 :01 HCW C. L Assoc. (Ch e 1 un > P. 09 10/24/92 HCWL Inc - Chelan TUKWILA STORM DRAINAGE ANALYSIS EXISTING CONDITIONS FOR THE 100YR - 24HR STORM EVENT PRECIPITATION EQUALS 8.9 INCHES page 1 H`IDROGRAPH SUMMARY PEAK TIME VOLUME HYD RUNOFF OF OF Contrib NUM RATE PEAK HYDRO Area cfo min. of -AcFt Acres 1 8.946 480 156760 cf 12.10 2 5.783 480 148959 of 11.50 3 14.400 480 305717 of 23.60 4 3.538 610 90681 cf 7.00 5 8.174 490 185236 of 14.30 8 11.422 490 275917 of 21.30 7 24.870 490 581833 cf 44.90 8 0.774 720 44900 cf 8.34 9 3.715 490 93535 of 8.98 10 3.960 490 138438 of 17.32 11 28.166 800 72002? cf 62.22 12 6.180 520 174487 cf 15.80 13 33.918 500 894514 cf 78.02 OCT -2Z -92 SUN 11 :02 HCW S. L Assoc. (Che 1 an> P. 10 10/24/92 HCWL Inc - Chelan TUKWILA STORM DRAINAGE ANALYSIS EXISTING CONDITIONS FOR THE 100YR - 24HR STORM EVENT PRECIPITATION EQUALS 9.9 INCHES page 2 DITCH REACH Ditch Length: 800.00 Side Slopel : 3.00 Side Slopel : 3.00 Manninge n :0.0300 bn W.S. Elev:0.0000 Trib Area: Depth Upstream W.S. Elev: 0.00 ft. : REACH SUMMARY ID No. N1 ft Ditch Width: Ditch Slope: 0. Contrib Bas: Dn Invert Num Steps : 10 4.00 ft 0013 ft /ft 10.12 ft 62.22 Ac. Design Flow : 1.69 ft Vel DITCH REACH Ditch Length: 700.00 Side Slopel :50.00 Side Slope2 :50.00 Mannings n :0.0300 Dn W.S. Elev :0.0000 28.18 cfa 1.84 fps ID No. N2 ft Ditoh Width: 2.00 ft Ditch Slope: 0.0010 ft /ft Contrib Bas: NP25 Dn Invert 9.30 ft Num Steps : 10 Trib Area: 15.80 Ac. Design Flow : Depth 0.44 ft Vel Upstream W.S. Elev: 0.00 ft. DITCH REACH Ditch Length: 750.00 Side Slopel : 7.00 Side Slope2 : 7.00 Mannings n :0.0300 Dn W.S. Elev:0.0000 8.18 cfs 0.59 fps ID No. cal ft Ditch Width: 0.00 ft Ditch Slope: 0.0100 ft /ft Contrib Has: a2 Dn Invert 10.00 ft Nunn Steps : 10 Trib Area: 5.00 Ac. Design Flow : Depth 0.48 ft Vol Upstream W.S. Elev: 0.00 ft. DITCH REACH Ditch Length:1070.00 Side Slopel : 3.00 Side Slope2 : 3.00 Mannings n :0.0800 Dn W.S. Elev:0.0000 2.74 cfa 1.85 fps ID No. bal -p ft Ditch Width: 2.00 ft Ditch Slope: 0.0030 ft /ft Contrib Bas: SP25 Dn Invert 11.18 ft Num Steps : 10 Trib Area: 8.34 Ac. Design Flow : Depth 0.47 ft Vel Upstream W.S. ▪ Elev: 0.00 ft. 0.77 cfa 0.48 fps O C T-2M-92 SUN 1 1 03 H C W & L Assoc.. C C A e 1 can > P. 11 10/24/92 HOWL Ino - Chelan TUKWILA STORM! DRAINAGE ANALYSIS EXISTING CONDITIONS FOR THE 100YR - 24HR STORM EVENT PRECIPITATION EQUALS 3.9 INCHES page 3 DZi K REACH Ditch Length: Side Slopel : Side Slope2 : Mo....a »na L Dn W.S. Kiev: REACH SUMMARY ID No. bat 1300.00 ft Ditch Width: 0.00 ft 7.00 Ditoh Slope: 0.0014 ft /ft 7.00 Contrib Has: a14 0.0300 Dn Invert 12.09 ft 0.0000 Val ;twin; : iu Trib Area: 7.00 Ao. Design Flow : Depth : 0.73 ft Vel Upstream W.S. Elev: 0.00 ft. DITCH REACH Ditch Length: 285.00 Side Slopes : 3.00 Side Slope2 : 3.00 Manning. n :0.0300 Dn W.S. Elev:0.0000 3.54 cfe • 0.94 fpe ID No. o2 ft Ditch Width: 3.00 ft Ditoh Slope: 0.0017 ft /ft Contrib Bae: a5a Dn Invsrt 14.64 ft Num Steps : 10 Trib Area: 8.30 Ao. Design Flow : Depth • 0.65 it Vel • Upstream W.S. Elev: 0.00 ft. PIPE REACH From: To: Pipe Diameter: Pipe Length : Up invert ID No. o3 2.00 ft 25.00 ft 11.79 ft Collection Area: 11.50 Ac. Design Flow 5.78 ofe Pipe Capacity : 18.65 eft Design Vol : 5.24 fps Pipe Pull Vel : 5.94 fps PIPE REACH From: To: ID No. d2 Pipe Diameter: 2.00 ft Pipe Length : 490.00 ft Up invert 16.85 ft Colleotion Area: Design Flow . Pipe Cepaoity Design V.1 Pipe Full Vel : 8.90 Ao. 5.02 cfe 22.79 ofe 5.82 fpe 7.25 fpe n: 0.0100 a: 0.0040 down invert: Degn Depth: Travel Time: n: 0.0120 e: 0.0088 down invert: Deign Depth: Travel Time: 3.84 ate 1.20 fps 11.89 ft 0.76 ft 0.08 min 12.64 ft 0.84 ft 1.40 min 10/24/92 HCWL Inc - Chelan TUKWILA STORM DRAINAGE ANALYSIS EXISTING CONDITIONS FOR THE 100YR - 24HR STORM EVENT PRECIPITATION EQUALS 3.9 INCHES page 4 PIPE REACH From: To: Pipe Diameter: Pipe Length : Up invert : Collection Area: Design Flow . Pipe Capacity Design Vel Pipe Full Vel : • • REACH SUMMARY ID No. d3 2.00 ft 152.00 ft 13.03 ft 12.10 Ac. 8.95 ofs 30.93 cfs 8.52 fps 9.84 fps n: 0.0100 s: 0.0110 down invert: 11.36 ft Dsgn Depth: 0.74 ft Travel Time: 0.30 min DITCH REACH ID No. el Ditch Length: 130.00 ft Ditch Width: 6.00 ft Side Slopel : 0.01 Ditch Slope: 0.0004 ft /ft Side Slope2 : 0.01 Contrib Bas: Mannings n :0.0120 Dn Invert : 11.30 ft Dn W.S. Elev :0.0000 Num Steps : 10 Trib Area: 23.60 Ac. Design Flow : 14.40 cfs Depth • 1.11 ft Vel 2.16 fps Upstream W.S. Elev: 0.00 ft. DITCH REACH ID No. e2 Ditch Length: 345.00 ft Ditch Width: 6.00 ft Side Slope' : 0.01 Ditch Slope: 0.0004 ft /ft Side Slope2 : 0.01 Contrib Bas: Mannings n :0.0120 Dn Invert : 11.16 ft Dn W.S. Elev:0.0000 Num Steps : 10 Trib Area: 44.90 Ac. Design Flow : Depth 1.61 ft Vel Upstream W.S. Elev: 0.00 ft. 24.87 cfs 2.57 fps Network Reach rl REACH < -ARIA> < -DIA> LENGTH SLOPE < n > DSGH 4 % P1P1 depth %Depth Vact Vfull C1►rea ID (Ac) (ft) (ft) ft /ft (cfe) (ft) - (fps) (fps) sal 5.00 .750,00 0.0100 0.0300 2.74 Ditch 0.46 Ditch 1.85 a2 N2 15.80 700.00 0.0010 0.0300 6.18 Ditch 0.44 Ditch 0.59 NP25 nr7 9 ' c19 1 1 • 1 7 =mmr.rie fl'9r r.nr^r. MM. . 10/24/92 HCWL Inc - Chelan TUKWILA STORM DRAINAGE ANALY'.IS EXISTING CONDITIONS FOR THE 100YR - 24HR STORM VENT PRECIPITATION EQUALS 3.9 INCHES page 5 Network each r2 REACH < -AREA> < -DIA> ID (Ac), (ft) REACH SUMMARY LENGTH SLOPE < n > DSGN Q % PIPE Ndeptb %Depth Vac (ft) ft /ft (cfs) (ft) (fps d2 8.90 2.00 d3 12.10 2.00 Network Reach r3 REACH < -AREA> < -DIA> ID (Ac) (ft) 490.00 0.0086 0.0120 5.02 22.04 0,64 31.90 5.8 152.00 0.0110 0.0100 8.95 28.92 0.74 36.83 8.5 LENGTH SLOPE < n > DSGN Q % PIPE Ndepth %Depth Vac (ft) ft /ft (cfs) (ft) (fps c2 8.30 c3 11.50 2.00 Network Reach r4 REACH < -AREA> < -DIA> ID (Ac) (ft) 285.00 0.0017 0.0300 3.84 Ditch 0.85 Ditch 1.2 25.00 0.0040 0.0100 5,78 31.01 0.76 38.23 5.2 LENGTH (ft) SLOPE < n > DSGN Q % PIPE Ndepth %Depth Vac ft /ft (cfs) (ft) (fps 652 7.00 Network Reach r5 REACH < -AREA> < -DIA> ID (Ac) (ft) 1300.00 0.0014 0.0300 3.54 Ditch 0.73 Ditch 0.9 LENGTH SLOPE < n > DSGN Q % PIPE Ndepth %Depth Vac (ft) ft /ft (cfe) - (ft) (fps bal -p 8.34 1070.00 0.0030 0.0800 0.77 Ditch 0.47 Ditch 0.4 Network Reach r6 REACH < -AREA> < -DIA> LENGTH SLOPE < n > DSGN Q % PIPE Ndeptb %Depth Vac ID (Ac) (ft) (ft) ft /ft (cfe) (ft) (fps Vfull Carea (fps) 7.25 a5b 9.84 e7b Vfull C_Area (fps) a5a 5.94 a7a Vfull C,Area (fpe) a14 Vfull Cjrea ape) SP25 Vfull CJirea (fps) el 23.60 Network Reach r7 REACH < -AREA> < -DIA> ID (Ac) (ft) 130.00 0.0004 0.0120 14.40 Ditch 1.11 Ditch 2.1 LENGTH (ft) SLOPE < a > DSGN Q % PIPE Ndepth %Depth Vac Vfull C.Area ft /ft (cfe) (ft) (fps) (fps) e2 44.90 CWT 2 'q? 11:17 345.00 0.0004 0.0120 24.87 Ditch 1.61 Ditch 2.5 9G19F;R22025 PAGF .002 10/24/92 HCWL Inc - Chelan TUKWILA STORM DRAINAGE ANALYSIS EXISTING CONDITIONS FOR THE 1O0YR - 24HR STORM EVENT PRECIPITATION EQUALS 3.9 INCHES page 6 Network Reach r8 BEACH < -AREA> < -DIA> ID (Ac) (ft) REACH SUMMARY LENGTH SLOPE < n > DSGN Q % PIPE Ndepth %Depth Vact Vfull C_Area (ft) ft /ft (cfs) (ft) (fps) (fps) Nl 62.22 800.00 0.0013 0.0300 28.16 Ditch 1.69 Ditch 1.84 DITCH REACH Ditch Length: 800.00 Side Slopel : 3.00 Side Slope2 : 3.00 Mannings n :0.1000 Dn W.S. Elev:0.0000 Trib Area: Depth • Upstream W.S. Elev: ID No. sp1 -p ft Ditch Width: 2.00 ft Ditch Slope: 0.0030 ft /ft Contrib Bas: SP25 Dn Invert 14.37 ft Num Steps : 10 Ac. Design Flow ft Vel 0.00 ft. cfs fps 10/24/92 HCWL Inc - Chelan TUKWILA STORM DRAINAGE ANALYSIS FUTURE CONDITIONS FOR THE 100YR - 24HR STORM EVENT PRECIPITATION EQUALS 3.9 INCHES page 1 BASIN ID: BA25 SBUH METHODOLOGY TOTAL AREA • RAINFALL TYPE PRECIPITATION TIME INTERVAL TIME OF CONC • ABSTRACTION COEFF: TcReach - Sheet L TcReach - Channel L PEAK RATE: 6.57 c BASIN ID: NP25 SBUH METHODOLOGY TOTAL AREA RAINFALL TYPE PRECIPITATION TIME INTERVAL TIME OF CONC.. ABSTRACTION COEFF: TcReach - Sheet L TcReach - Channel L PEAK RATE: 6.92 c BASIN ID: SP25 SBUH METHODOLOGY TOTAL AREA RAINFALL TYPE PRECIPITATION TIME INTERVAL TIME OF CONC ABSTRACTION COEFF: • TcReach - Sheet TcReach - Channel PEAK RATE: 4.77 OCT 25 '92 11:18 BASIN SUMMARY NAME: Post - Development Conditions 8.98 Acres TYPE1A 3.90 inches 10.00 min 11.49 min 0.20 BASEFLOWS: 0.00 cfs PERVIOUS AREA AREA..: 2.42 Acres CN • 90.00 IMPERVIOUS AREA AREA..: 6.56 Acres CN 98.00 : 260.00 ne:0.0110 p2yr: 1.95 x:0.0150 :1070.00 kc:42.00 s ;0.0030 fs VOL: 2.57 Ac -ft TIME: 480 min NAME: Post-Development Conditions 10.80 Acres TYPE1A 3.90 inches 10.00 min 19.25 min 0.20 BASEFLOWS: 0.00 cfs PERVIOUS AREA AREA..: 4.47 Acres CN • 90.00 IMPERVIOUS AREA AREA..: 6.33 Acres CN • 98.00 : 300.00 ns :0.0110 p2yr; 1.95 8 :0.0150 :1200.00 kc:42.00 8 :0.0010 fs VOL: 2.99 Ac -ft TIME: 480 min NAME: Post-Development Conditions 8.34 Acres TYPE1A 3.90 inches 10.00 min 18.51 min BASEFLOWS: 0.00 cfs PERVIOUS AREA AREA..: 3.15 Acres CN • 80.30 IMPERVIOUS AREA 0.20 AREA..: 5.16 Acres CN • 98.00 L: 300.00 ns:0.0110 p2yr: 1.95 8 :0.0150 L: 800.00 ko:17.00 8:0.0030 cfs VOL: 2.10 Ac -ft TIME: 480 min 9096RP RPR pig ;F . nna 10/24/92 HCWL Inc - Chelan TUKWILA STORM DRAINAGE ANALYSIS FUTURE CONDITIONS FOR THE 100YR - 24HR STORM EVENT PRECIPITATION EQUALS 3.9 INCHES page 2 BASIN ID: a14 SBUH METHODOLOGY TOTAL AREA RAINFALL TYPE PRECIPITATION TIME INTERVAL TIME OF CONC • • BASIN SUMMARY NAME: Existing Conditions 7.00 Acres TYPE1A 3.90 inches 10.00 min 39.86 min BASEFLOWS: 0.00 cfs PERVIOUS AREA AREA..: 1.05 Acres CN • 92.00 IMPERVIOUS AREA ABSTRACTION COEFF: 0.20 AREA..: 5.95 Acres CN • 98.00 TcReach - Sheet L: 200.00 ns:0.1500 p2yr: 1.95 s :0.0150 TcReach - Channel L: 700.00 kc:17.00 s :0.0020 PEAK RATE: 3.87 cfs VOL: 2.08 Ac -ft TIME: 490 min BASIN ID: a2 SBUH METHODOLOGY TOTAL AREA - RAINFALL TYPE PRECIPITATION TIME INTERVAL TIME OF CONC ABSTRACTION COEFF: NAME: Existing Conditions 5.00 Acres TYPE1A 3.90 inches 10.00 min 36.90 min 0.20 BASEFLOWS: 0.00 cis PERVIOUS AREA AREA..: 0.75 Acres CN - 92.00 IMPERVIOUS AREA AREA..: 4.25 Acres CN • 98.00 TcReach - Sheet L: 500.00 ns:0.1000 p2yr: 1.95 s:0.0150 PEAK RATE: 2.82 cfs VOL: 1.49 Ac -ft TIME: 490 min BASIN ID: a5a SBUH METHODOLOGY TOTAL AREA RAINFALL TYPE PRECIPITATION TIME INTERVAL TIME OF CONC ABSTRACTION COEFF: TcReach - Sheet TcReach - Shallow TcReach - Channel PEAK RATE: 3.93 OCT 25 '92 11:19 NAME: Existing Conditions 8.30 Acres TYPE1A 3.90 inches 10.00 min 62.28 min 0.20 BASEFLOWS: 0.00 cfs PERVIOUS AREA AREA..: 1.25 Acres CN • 92.00 IMPERVIOUS AREA AREA..: 7.05 Acres CN 98.00 L: 300.00 ns :0.1500 p2yr: 1.95 8:0.0100 L: 300.00 ks :13.00 s:0.0100 L: 780.00 kc:17.00 8:0.0017 cfs VOL: 2.47 Ac -ft TIME: 490 min 5096822026 PAGE.005 10/24/92 HCWL Inc - Chelan TUKWILA STORM DRAINAGE ANALYSIS FUTURE CONDITIONS FOR THE 100YR - 24HR STORM EVENT PRECIPITATION EQUALS 3.9 INCHES page 3 BASIN ID: a5b SBUH METHODOLOGY TOTAL AREA • RAINFALL TYPE PRECIPITATION TIME INTERVAL TIME OF CONC ABSTRACTION COEFF: TcReach - Sheet L TcReach - Channel L PEAK RATE: 5.02 c BASIN ID: a7a SBUH METHODOLOGY TOTAL AREA RAINFALL TYPE PRECIPITATION TIME INTERVAL TIME OF CONC ABSTRACTION COEFF: BASIN SUMMARY NAME: Existing Conditions 6.90 Acres TYPE1A 3.90 inches 10.00 min 14.72 min 0.20 BASEFLOWS: 0.00 cfs PERVIOUS AREA AREA..: 1.03 Acres CN • 92.00 IMPERVIOUS AREA AREA..: 5.87 Acres CN • 98.00 : 500.00 ns :0.0110 p2yr: 1.95 x:0.0020 : 220.00 kc:67.00 s:0.0086 fs VOL: 2.05 Ac -ft TIME: 480 min NAME: Existing Conditions 3.20 Acres TYPE1A 3.90 inches 10.00 min 10.38 min 0.20 • BASEFLOWS: 0.00 cfs • PERVIOUS AREA • AREA..: 0.48 Acres • CN • 92.00 IMPERVIOUS AREA AREA..: 2.72 Acres CN 98.00 TcReach - Sheet L: 340.00 ns :0.0110 p2yr: 1.95 s :0.0020 PEAK RATE: 2.45 cfs VOL: 0.95 Ac -ft TIME: 480 min BASIN ID: alb SBUH METHODOLOGY TOTAL AREA • RAINFALL TYPE PRECIPITATION TIME INTERVAL TIME OF CONC ABSTRACTION COEFF: NAME: Existing Conditions 5.20 Acres TYPE1A 3.90 inches 10.00 min 11.82 min 0.20 BASEFLOWS: 0.00 cfs PERVIOUS AREA AREA..: 0.78 Acres CN • 92.00 IMPERVIOUS AREA AREA..: 4.42 Acres CN • 98.00 TcReach - Sheet L: 400.00 ns:0.0110 p2yr: 1.95 8:0.0020 PEAK RATE: 3.92 cfs VOL: 1.55 Ac -ft TIME: 480 min OCT 25 '92 11:2e 50968220026 PAGF . nel 10/24/92 HCWL Inc - Chelan TUKWILA STORM DRAINAGE ANALYSIS FUTURE CONDITIONS FOR THE 100YR - 24HR STORM EVENT PRECIPITATION EQUALS 3.9 INCHES page 4 BASIN ID: a9 SBUH METHODOLOGY • TOTAL AREA RAINFALL TYPE PRECIPITATION TIME INTERVAL TIME OF CONC ABSTRACTION COEFF: BASIN SUMMARY NAME: Existing Conditions 14.30 Acres TYPE1A 3.90 inches 10.00 min 35.29 min 0.20 TcReach - Sheet L: 200.00 TcReach - Channel L:1300.00 PEAK RATE: 8.17 cfs VOL: OCT 25 '92 11:20 EASEFLOWS: 0.00 PERVIOUS AREA AREA..: 2.15 CN 92.00 IMPERVIOUS AREA AREA..: 12.15 CN • 98.00 ns:0.0110 p2yr: 1.95 8 :0.0020 kc:17.00 s:0.0020 4.25 Ac -ft TIME: cfs Acres Acres 490 min 5096822028 PAGF.OA7 10/24/92 HCWL Inc - Chelan TUKWILA STORM DRAINAGE ANALYSIS FUTURE CONDITIONS FOR THE 100YR - 24HR STORM EVENT PRECIPITATION EQUALS 3.9 INCHES page 5 HYDROGRAPH SUMMARY PEAK TIME VOLUME HYD RUNOFF OF OF Contrib NUM RATE PEAK HYDRO Area cfs min. cf -AcFt Acres 1 8.946 480 156760 cf 12.10 2 5.783 480 148959 cf 11.50 3 14.400 480 305717 cf 23.60 4 3.536 510 90681 of 7.00 5 8.174 490 185236 of 14.30 6 11.422 490 275917 cf 21.30 7 24.870 490 581633 cf 44.90 8 4.773 480 91542 cf 8.34 9 6.569 480 112094 of 8.98 10 11.342 480 203636 cf 17.32 11 33.725 500 785263 cf 62.22 12 9.002 500 194819 cf 15.80 13 42.726 500 980082 cf 78.02 10/22/92 HCWL Inc - Chelan TUKWILA STORM DRAINAGE ANALYSIS EXISTING CONDITIONS FOR THE 2YR - 24HR STORM EVENT PRECIPITATION EQUALS 1.95 INCHES page 1 BASIN ID: BA25 SBUH METHODOLOGY TOTAL AREA RAINFALL TYPE PRECIPITATION TIME INTERVAL TIME OF CONC ABSTRACTION COEFF: TcReach - Sheet L TcReach - Channel L PEAK RATE: 1.28 c BASIN ID: NP25 SBUH METHODOLOGY TOTAL AREA RAINFALL TYPE PRECIPITATION TIME INTERVAL TIME OF CONC ABSTRACTION COEFF: TcReach - Sheet L TcReach - Channel L PEAK RATE: 1.29 c BASIN ID: SP25 SBUH METHODOLOGY TOTAL AREA • RAINFALL TYPE PRECIPITATION TIME INTERVAL TIME OF CONC • ABSTRACTION COEFF: TcReach - Sheet TcReach - Channel PEAK RATE: 0.17 BASIN SUMMARY NAME: Pre - Development Conditions 8.98 Acres TYPE1A 1.95 inches 10.00 min 49.40 min 0.20 BASEFLOWS: 0.00 cfs PERVIOUS AREA AREA..: 8.50 Acres CN • 90.00 IMPERVIOUS AREA AREA..: 0.48 Acres CN • 98.00 : 260.00 n8:0.1500 p2yr: 1.95 s:0.0150 :1070.00 kc :17.00 e :0.0030 fs VOL: 0.81 Ac-ft TIME: 490 min NAME: Pre - Development Conditions 10.80 Acres TYPE1A 1.95 inches 10.00 min 61.82 min 0.20 BASEFLOWS: 0.00 cfs PERVIOUS AREA AREA..: 10.00 Acres CN - 89.00 IMPERVIOUS AREA AREA..: 0.80 Acres CN • 98.00 : 300.00 ns:0.1500 p2yr: 1.95 8 :0.0150 : 900.00 kc:17.00 8:0.0010 fs VOL: 0.94 Ac -ft TIME: 490 min NAME: Pre - Development Conditions 8.34 Acres TYPE1A 1.95 inches 10.00 min 166.99 min 0.20 L: 230.00 L: 700.00 cfs VOL: BASEFLOWS: 0.00 cfs PERVIOUS AREA AREA..: 8.00 Acres CN 72.00 IMPERVIOUS AREA AREA..: 0.34 Acres CN 98.00 ns:0.8000 p2yr: 1.95 s :0.0150 kc:5.00 8:0.0014 0.23 Ac -ft TIME: 960 min 10/22/92 HCWL Inc - Chelan TUKWILA STORM DRAINAGE ANALYSIS EXISTING CONDITIONS FOR THE 2YR - 24HR STORM EVENT PRECIPITATION EQUALS 1.95 INCHES page 2 BASIN ID: a14 SBUH METHODOLOGY TOTAL AREA • RAINFALL TYPE PRECIPITATION TIME INTERVAL TIME OF CONC BASIN SUMMARY NAME: 7.00 Acres TYPE1A 1.95 inches 10.00 min 39.86 min ABSTRACTION COEFF: 0.20 BASEFLOWS: 0.00 cfs PERVIOUS AREA AREA..: 1.05 Acres CN • 92.00 IMPERVIOUS AREA AREA..: 5.95 Acres CN 98.00 TcReach - Sheet L: 200.00 ns:0.1500 p2yr; 1.95 8:0.0150 TcReach - Channel L: 700.00 kc:17.00 s :0.0020 PEAK RATE: 1.80 cis VOL: 0.96 Ac -ft TIME: 490 min BASIN ID: a2 SBUH METHODOLOGY TOTAL AREA • RAINFALL TYPE PRECIPITATION TIME INTERVAL TIME OF CONC ABSTRACTION COEFF: TcReach - Sheet PEAK RATE: 1.32 BASIN ID: a5a SBUH METHODOLOGY TOTAL AREA • RAINFALL TYPE PRECIPITATION TIME INTERVAL TIME OF CONC ABSTRACTION COEFF: TcReach - Sheet TcReach - Shallow TcReach - Channel PEAK RATE: 1.82 nrT 2 '42 11:2 NAME: 5.00 Acres TYPE1A 1.95 inches 10.00 in 36.90 min 0.20 L: 500.00 cfs VOL: NAME: BASEFLOWS: 0.00 cfs PERVIOUS AREA AREA..: 0.75 Acres CN - 92.00 IMPERVIOUS AREA AREA4.25 Acres CN • 98.00 ns:0.1000 p2yr: 1.95 8:0.0150 0.69 Ac -ft TIME: 490 in 8.30 Acres TYPE1A 1.95 inches 10.00 min 62.28 min 0.20 L: 300.00 L: 300.00 L: 780.00 cfs VOL: BASEFLOWS: 0. PERVIOUS AREA AREA..: 1. CN 92. IMPERVIOUS AREA AREA..: 7. CN • 98. ns:0.1500 p2yr: 1.95 s: ks:13.00 8:0.0100 kc:17.00 8:0.0017 1.14 Ac -ft TIME: 00 cfs 25 Acres 00 05 Acres 00 0.0100 490 min ("AgRP^ ^c cor_c m i n 10/22/92 HCWL Inc - Chelan TUKWILA STORM DRAINAGE ANALYSIS EXISTING CONDITIONS FOR THE 2YR - 24HR STORM EVENT PRECIPITATION EQUALS 1.95 INCHES page 3 BASIN SUMMARY BASIN ID: a5b NAME: SBUH METHODOLOGY TOTAL AREA • 6.90 Acres RAINFALL TYPE • TYPE1A PRECIPITATION • 1.95 inches TIME INTERVAL • 10.00 min TIME OF CONC - 14.72 min ABSTRACTION COEFF: 0.20 ToReach - Sheet TcReach -• Channel PEAK RATE: 2.35 BASIN ID: a7a SBUH METHODOLOGY TOTAL AREA RAINFALL TYPE PRECIPITATION TIME INTERVAL TIME OF CONC ABSTRACTION COEFF: L: 500.00 ns:0.0 L: 220.00 kc :67. cfs VOL: 0.95 NAME: 3.20 Acres TYPE1A 1.95 inches 10.00 min 10.38 min 0.20 BASEFLOWS: 0.00 cfs PERVIOUS AREA AREA..: 1.03 Acres CN 92.00 IMPERVIOUS AREA AREA..: 5.87 Acres CN • 98.00 110 p2yr: 1.95 s :0.0020 00 s:0.0066 Ac -ft TIME: 480 min • BASEFLOWS: 0.00 cfs PERVIOUS AREA • AREA..: 0.48 Acres CN • 92.00 IMPERVIOUS AREA AREA..: 2.72 Acres CN • 98.00 TcReach - Sheet L: 340.00 ns:0.0110 p2yr: 1.95 a :0.0020 PEAK RATE: 1.15 cfs VOL: 0.44 Ac -ft TIME: 480 min BASIN ID: a7b SBUH METHODOLOGY TOTAL AREA • RAINFALL TYPE PRECIPITATION TIME INTERVAL TIME OF CONC ABSTRACTION COEFF: .TcReach - Sheet PEAK RATE: 1.84 NAME: 5.20 Acres TYPE1A 1.95 inches 10.00 min 11.82 min 0.20 L: 400.00 cfs VOL: BASEFLOWS: 0.00 cfs PERVIOUS AREA AREA..: 0.78 Acres CN • 92.00 IMPERVIOUS AREA AREA..: 4.42 Acres CN • 98.00 ns :0.0110 p2yr: 1.95 s:0.0020 0.71 Ac -ft TIME: 480 min 10/22/92 HCWL Inc - Chelan TUKWILA STORM DRAINAGE ANALYSIS EXISTING CONDITIONS FOR THE 2YR - 24HR STORM EVENT PRECIPITATION EQUALS 1.95 INCHES page BASIN ID: a9 SBUH METHODOLOGY TOTAL AREA RAINFALL TYPE • PRECIPITATION TIME INTERVAL TIME OF CONC ABSTRACTION COEFF: BASIN SUMMARY NAME: 14.30 Acres TYPE1A 1.95 inches 10.00 min 35.29 min 0.20 TcReach - Sheet L: 200.00 TcReach - Channel L:1300.00 PEAK RATE: 3.81 cfs VOL: BASEFLOWS: 0.00 PERVIOUS AREA AREA..: 2.15 CN • 92.00 IMPERVIOUS AREA AREA..: 12.15 CN • 98.00 ns:0.0110 p2yr: 1.95 x:0.0020 kc :17.00 8:0.0020 1.96 Ac -ft TIME: cfs Acres Acres 490 min 10/24/92 HCWL Inc - Chelan TUKWILA STORM DRAINAGE ANALYSIS FUTURE CONDITIONS FOR THE 2YR - 24HR STORM EVENT PRECIPITATION EQUALS 1.95 INCHES page 1 HYDROGRAPH SUMMARY PEAK TIME VOLUME HYD RUNOFF OF OF Contrib NUM RATE PEAK HYDRO Area cfe min. cf -AcFt Acres 1 4.190 480 72260 cf 12.10 2 2.648 490 68654 of 11.50 3 8.601 480 140913 of 23.60 4 1.607 520 41798 of 7.00 5 3.814 490 85377 of 14.30 6 5.033 490 127175 of 21.30 7 11.375 490 268086 of 44.90 8 1.956 480 38590 of 8.34 9 2.964 480 50310 of 8.98 10 4.814 480 88900 of 17.32 11 15.198 510 356978 of 62.22 12 3.916 490 86545 of 15.80 13 18.881 500 443523 of 78.02 ( .T ?S ,c1? 11:74 SGIQC2G99179M 170rC r71I O 10/24/92 HCWL Inc - Chelan TUKWILA STORM DRAINAGE ANALYSIS FUTURE CONDITIONS FOR THE 2YR - 24 HR STORM EVENT PRECIPITATION EQUALS 1.95 INCHES page 1 BASIN ID: BA25 SBUH METHODOLOGY TOTAL AREA • RAINFALL TYPE • PRECIPITATION TIME INTERVAL TIME OF CONC ABSTRACTION COEFF: TcReach - Sheet L TcReach - Channel L PEAK RATE: 2.96 c BASIN ID: NP25 SBUH METHODOLOGY TOTAL AREA • RAINFALL TYPE PRECIPITATION TIME INTERVAL TIME OF CONC ABSTRACTION COEFF: TcReach - Sheet ToReach - Channel PEAK RATE: 2.98 BASIN ID: SP25 SBUH METHODOLOGY TOTAL AREA • RAINFALL TYPE PRECIPITATION TIME INTERVAL TIME OF CONC ABSTRACTION COEFF: TcReach - Sheet TcReach - Channel PEAK RATE: 1.96 BASIN SUMMARY NAME: Post - Development Conditions 8.98 Acres TYPE1A 1.95 inches 10.00 min 11.49 min 0.20 BASEFLOWS: 0.00 cfs PERVIOUS AREA AREA..: 2.42 Acres CN • 90.00 IMPERVIOUS AREA AREA..: 6.56 Acres CN • 98.00 : 260.00 ns:0.0110 p2yr: 1.95 x:0.0150 :1070.00 kc:42.00 8:0.0030 fa VOL: 1.15 Ac -ft TIME: 480 min NAME: Post - Development Conditions 10.80 Acree TYPE1A 1.95 inches 10.00 min 19.25 min 0.20 L: 300.00 L:1200.00 cfs VOL: BASEFLOWS: 0.00 cfs PERVIOUS AREA AREA..: 4.47 Acres CN • 90.00 IMPERVIOUS AREA AREA..: 6.33 Acres CN 98.00 ns:0.0110 p2yr: 1.95 8:0.0150 kc:42.00 x:0.0010 1.30 Ac -ft TIME: 480 min NAME: Post - Development Conditions 8.34 Acres TYPE1A 1.95 inches 10.00 min 18.51 min BASEFLOWS: 0.00 cfs PERVIOUS AREA AREA..: 3.18 Acres CN 80.30 IMPERVIOUS AREA 0.20 AREA..: 5.16 Acres CN • 98.00 L: 300.00 ns:0.0110 p2yr: 1.95 8:0.0150 L: 800.00 kc:17.00 s:0.0030 cfs VOL: 0.89 Ac -ft TIME: 480 min 10/24/92 FUTURE CONDITIONS PRECIPITATION EQUA HCWL Inc - Chelan TUKWILA STORM DRAINAGE ANALYSIS FOR THE 2YR - 24 HR STORM EVENT LS 1.95 INCHES page 2 BASIN ID: a14 SBUH METHODOLOGY TOTAL AREA 7.00 Acres BASIN SUMMARY NAME: Existing Conditions RAINFALL TYPE • PRECIPITATION TIME INTERVAL TIME OF CONC ABSTRACTION COEFF: TcReach - Sheet TcReach - Channel PEAK RATE: 1.80 BASIN ID: a2 SBUH METHODOLOGY TOTAL AREA • RAINFALL TYPE • PRECIPITATION • TIME INTERVAL • TIME OF CONC ABSTRACTION COEFF: TYPE1A 1.95 inches 10.00 min 39.86 min 0.20 L: 200.00 L: 700.00 cfs VOL: BASEFLOWS: 0.00 cfs PERVIOUS AREA AREA..: 1.05 Acres CN • 92.00 IMPERVIOUS AREA AREA..: 5.95 Acres CN • 98.00 na :0.1500 p2yr: 1.95 s:0.0150 kc:17.00 s:0.0020 0.96 Ac -ft TIME: 490 min NAME: Existing Conditions 5.00 Acres TYPE1A 1.95 inches 10.00 min 36.90 min 0.20 BASEFLOWS: 0.00 cfs PERVIOUS AREA AREA..: 0.75 Acres CN • 92.00 IMPERVIOUS AREA AREA..: 4.25 Acres CN 98.00 TcReach - Sheet L: 500.00 ns:0.1000 p2yr: 1.95 s:0.0150 PEAK RATE: 1.32 cfs VOL: 0.69 Ac -ft TIME: 490 min BASIN ID: a5a SBUH METHODOLOGY TOTAL AREA RAINFALL TYPE PRECIPITATION TIME INTERVAL TIME OF CONC • • • ABSTRACTION COEFF: TcReach - Sheet L TcReach - Shallow L TcReach - Channel L PEAK RATE: ' 1.82 c NAME: Existing Conditions 8.30 Acres TYPE1A 1.95 inches 10.00 min 62.28 min 0.20 BASEFLOWS: 0.00 cfs PERVIOUS AREA AREA..: 1.25 Acres CN • 92.00 IMPERVIOUS AREA AREA..: 7.05 Acres CN 98.00 : 300.00 ns:0.1500 p2yr: 1.95 s :0.0100 : 300.00 ks:13.00 5:0.0100 : 780.00 kc:17.00 x:0.0017 fa VOL: 1.14 Ac -ft TIME: 490 min 10/24/92 HOWL Inc - Chelan TUKWILA STORM DRAINAGE ANALYSIS FUTURE CONDITIONS FOR THE 2YR - 24 HR STORM EVENT PRECIPITATION EQUALS 1.95 INCHES page 3 BASIN ID: a5b SBUH METHODOLOGY • TOTAL AREA RAINFALL TYPE PRECIPITATION TIME INTERVAL TIME OF CONC ABSTRACTION COEFF: TcReach - Sheet TcReach - Channel PEAK RATE: 2.35 BASIN ID: a7a SBUH METHODOLOGY TOTAL AREA • RAINFALL TYPE PRECIPITATION TIME INTERVAL TIME OF CONC ABSTRACTION COEFF: BASIN SUMMARY NAME: Existing Conditions 6.90 Acres TYPE1A 1.95 inches 10.00 min 14.72 min 0.20 L: 500.00 L: 220.00 cfs VOL: BASEFLOWS: 0.00 cfs PERVIOUS AREA AREA..: 1.03 Acres CN • 92.00 IMPERVIOUS AREA AREA..: 5.87 Acres CN 98.00 ns:0.0110 p2yr: 1.95 e:0.0020 kc:67.00 s:0.0086 0.95 Ac -ft TIME: 480 min NAME: Existing Conditions 3.20 Acres TYPE1A 1.95 inches 10.00 min 10.38 min 0.20 BASEFLOWS: 0.00 cfs PERVIOUS AREA AREA..: 0.48 Acres CN - 92.00 IMPERVIOUS AREA AREA..: 2.72 Acres CN 98.00 TcReach - Sheet L: 340.00 ns:0.0110 p2yr: 1.95 s:0.0020 PEAK RATE: 1.15 cfs VOL: 0.44 Ac -ft TIME: 480 min BASIN ID: alb SBUH METHODOLOGY TOTAL AREA • RAINFALL TYPE • PRECIPITATION TIME INTERVAL TIME OF CONC ABSTRACTION COEFF: NAME: Existing Conditions 5.20 Acres TYPE1A 1.95 inches 10.00 min 11.82 min 0.20 TcReach - Sheet L: 400.00 ns:0. PEAK RATE: 1.84 cfs VOL: 0.7 BASEFLOWS: 0.00 cfs PERVIOUS AREA AREA..: 0.78 Acres CN • 92.00 IMPERVIOUS AREA AREA..: 4.42 Acres CN • 98.00 0110 p2yr: 1.95 s :0.0020 1 Ac -ft TIME: 480 min : 10/24/92 HCWL Inc - Chelan TUKWILA STORM DRAINAGE ANALYSIS FUTURE CONDITIONS FOR THE 2YR - 24 HR STORM EVENT PRECIPITATION EQUALS 1.95 INCHES page 4 BASIN ID: a9 SBUH METHODOLOGY TOTAL AREA - RAINFALL TYPE PRECIPITATION TIME INTERVAL TIME OF CONC ABSTRACTION COEFF: ToReach - Sheet TeReach - Channel PEAK RATE: 3.81 BASIN SUMMARY NAME: Existing 14.30 Acres TYPE1A 1.95 inches 10.00 min 35.29 min 0.20 Conditions BASEFLOWS: 0.00 PERVIOUS AREA AREA..: 2.15 CN - 92.00 IMPERVIOUS AREA AREA..: 12.15 CN • 98.00 L: 200.00 ns:0.0110 p2yr: 1.95 8:0.0020 L:1300.00 kc:17.00 3:0.0020 cfs VOL: 1.96 Ac -ft TIME: 490 min cfs Acres Acres OCT 25 '92 11:26 5096822026 PAGE.017 10/24/92 HCWL Inc - Chelan TUKWILA STORM DRAINAGE ANALYSIS FUTURE CONDITIONS FOR THE 2YR - 24 HR STORM EVENT PRECIPITATION EQUALS 1.95 INCHES page 5 PIPE REACH From: To: Pipe Diameter: Pipe Length . Up invert Collection Area: Design Flow • Pipe Capacity . Design Vel Pipe Full Vel ID No. 2.00 ft 1070.00 ft 14.37 ft REACH SUMMARY BA1 Ac. cfs cfs fps fps n: 0.0120 s: 0.0030 down invert: Dsgn Depth: Travel Time: 11.18 ft DITCH REACH ID No. Ni Ditch Length: 900.00 ft Ditch Width: 12.00 ft Side Slopes : 2.00 Ditch Slope: 0.0013 ft /ft Side Slope2 : 2.00 Contrib Bas: Mannings n :0.0300 Dn Invert : 10.00 ft Dn W.S. Elev:0.0000 Num Steps : 10 Trib Area: Depth Upstream W.S. Elev: • • Ac. Design Flow : ft Vel • 0.00 ft. DITCH REACH ID No. N2 Ditch Length: 300.00 ft Ditch Width: 12.00 ft Side Slopel : 2.00 Ditch Slope: 0.0010 ft /ft Side Slope2 : 2.00 Contrib Bas: Mannings n :0.0300 Dn Invert 9.90 ft Dn W.S. Elev :0.0000 Num Steps : 10 Trib Area: Depth • Upstream W.S. Elev: Ac. Design Flow : ft Vel 0.00 ft. DITCH REACH ID No. ant Ditch Length: 750.00 ft Ditch Width: 0.00 ft Side Slopel : 7.00 Ditch Slope: 0.0100 ft /ft Side Slope2 : 7.00 Contrib Bas: a2 Mannings n :0.0300 Dn Invert 10.00 ft Dn W.S. Elev:0.0000 Num Steps : 10 Trib Area: 5.00 Ac. Design Flow : Depth 0.35 ft Vel Upstream W.S. Elev: 0.00 ft. cfe fps cfs fps 1.28 cfs 1.53 fps ft min OCT 25 '92 11:27 5096822626 PAGE.018 10/24/92 HOWL Inc - Chelan TUKWILA STORM DRAINAGE ANALYSIS FUTURE CONDITIONS FOR THE 2YR - 24 HR STORM EVENT PRECIPITATION EQUALS 1.95 INCHES page 6 REACH SUMMARY DITCH REACH ID No. bs2 Ditch Length:1300.00 ft Ditch Width: 0.00 ft Side Slopel : 7.00 Ditch Siope: 0.0014 ft /ft Side Slope2 : 7.00 Contrib Bas: a14 Mannings n :0.0300 Dn Invert 12.09 ft Dn W.S. Elev:0.0000 Num Steps : 10 Trib Area: 7.00 Ac. Design Flow : Depth : 0.54 ft Vel Upstream W.S. Elev: 0.00 ft. 1.61 cfs 0.78 fps DITCH REACH ID No. c2 Ditch Length: 285.00 ft Ditch Width: 3.00 ft Side Slopel : 3.00 Ditch Siope: 0.0017 ft /ft Side Slope2 : 3.00 Contrib Bas: a5a Mannings n :0.0300 Dn Invert : 14.64 ft Dn W.S. Elev:0.0000 Num Steps : 10 Trib Area: 8.30 Ac. Design Flow : Depth : 0.43 ft Vel Upstream W.S. Elev: 0.00 ft. PIPE REACH From: To: Pipe Diameter: Pipe Length . Up invert . Collection Area: Design Flow . Pipe Capacity . Design Vel Pipe Full Vel PIPE REACH From: To: Pipe Diameter: Pipe Length : Up invert . Collection Area: Design Flow . Pipe Capacity . Design Vel Pipe Full Vel . ID No. c3 2.00 ft 25.00 ft 11.79 ft 11.50 Ac. 2.65 cfs 18.65 cfs 4.20 fps 5.94 fps ID No. d2 2.00 ft 490.00 ft 16.85 ft -6.90 Ac. 2.35 cfs 22.79 cfe 4.68 fps 7.25 fps n: 0.0100 s: 0.0040 down invert: 1.77 cfs 0.96 fps 11.69 ft Dsgn Depth: 0.51 ft Travel Time: 0.10 min n: 0.0120 s: 0.0086 down invert: 12.64 ft Dsgn Depth: 0.43 ft Travel Time: 1.74 min { OCT 25 '92 11:27 5096822026 PAGE.019 10/24/92 HCWL Inc - Chelan TUKWILA STORM DRAINAGE ANALYSIS FUTURE CONDITIONS FOR THE 2YR - 24 HR STORM EVENT PRECIPITATION EQUALS 1.95 INCHES page 7 PIPE REACH From: To: Pipe Diameter: Pipe Length . Up invert . REACH SUMMARY ID No. d3 2.00 ft 152.00 ft 13.03 ft n: 0.0100 s: 0.0110 down invert: 11.36 ft Collection Area: 12.10 Ac. Design Flow 4.19 cfs Dsgn Depth: 0.50 ft Pipe Capacity : 30.93 cfs Design Vel 6.88 fps Travel Time: 0.37 min Pipe Full Vet : 9.84 fps DITCH REACH ID No. el Ditch Length: 130.00 ft Ditch Width: 6.00 ft Side Slopel : 0.01 Ditch Slope: 0.0004 ft /ft Side Slope2 : 0.01 Contrib Bas: Mannings n :0.0120 Dn Invert : 11.30 ft Dn W.S. Elev:0.0000 Num Steps : 10 Trib Area: 23.60 Ac. Design Flow : Depth 0.66 ft Vel Upstream W.S. Elev: 0.00 ft. 6.60 cfs 1.66 fps DITCH REACH ID No. e2 Ditch Length: 345.00 ft Ditch Width: 6.00 ft Side Slopel : 0.01 Ditch Slope: 0.0004 ft /ft Side Slope2 : 0.01 Contrib Eas: Mannings n :0.0120 Dn Invert 11.16 ft Dn W.S. Elev:0.0000 Num Steps : 10 Trib Area: 44.90 Ac. Design Flow : 11.38 cfs Depth 0.95 ft Vel 2.00 fps Upstream W.S. Elev: 0.00 ft. Network leach ri REACH < -AREA> < -DIA> LENGTH SLOPE < n > DSGN Q % PIPE Ndepth %Depth Vact Vfull Urea ID (Ac) (ft) (ft) ft /ft (cfe) (ft) (fps) (fpa) aal 5.00 ' - 750.00 0.0100 0.0300 1.28 Ditch 0.35 Ditch 1.53 a2 112 300.00 0.0010 0.0300 Ditch Ditch 10/24/92 HCWL Inc - Chelan TUKWILA STORM DRAINAGE ANALYSIS FUTURE CONDITIONS FOR THE 2YR - 24 HR STORM EVENT PRECIPITATION EQUALS 1.95 INCHES page 8 REACH SUMMARY Network Reach r2 REACH < -AREA> < -DIA> LENGTH SLOPE < a > DSGN Q % PIPE Ndepth %Depth Vact Vfull C_Area ID (Ac) (ft) (ft) ft /ft (cfa) (ft) (fpa) (fps) d2 6.90 2.00 490,00 0.0086 0.0120 2.35 10.32 0.43 21.69 4.68 7.25 a5b d3 12.10 2.00 152.00 0.0110 0.0100 4.19 13.55 0.50 24.86 6.88 9.64 alb Network Reach r3 REACH < -AREA> < -DIA> ID (Ac) (ft) LENGTH SLOPE < n > DSGN Q % PIPE Ndepth %Depth Vact (ft) ft /ft (cfa) (ft) (fpa) Vfull C_Area (fpa) c2 8.30 285.00 0,0017 0.0300 1.77 Ditch 0.43 Ditch 0.96 a5a eS 11.50 2.00 25.00 0.0040 0.0100 2.65 14.20 0.51 25,46 4.20 5.94 ea Network Reach r4 REACH < -AREA> < -DIA> ID (Ac) (ft) LENGTH SLOPE < a > DSGN Q % PIPE Ndepth %Depth Vact Vfull Urea (ft) ft /ft (cfs) (ft) (fpe) (fpa) be2 7.00 1300.00 0.0014 0.0300 1.61 Ditch 0.54 Ditch 0.78 a14 Network Reach r5 REACH < -AREA> < -DIA> LENGTH SLOP! < n > DSGN Q % PIPE Ndepth %Depth Vact Vfull C_Area ID (Ac) (ft) (ft) ft /ft -- - - -- (cfs) (ft) (fpe) (fps) BA 1 2.00 1070.00 0.0030 0.0120 Network Reach r6 REACH < -AREA> < -DIA> ID (Ac) (ft) LENGTH SLOPE < a > DSGN Q % PIPE Ndepth %Depth Vact Vfull C_Area (ft) ft /ft (cfs) (ft) (fpe) (fps) el 23.60 130.00 0.0004 0.0120 6.60 Ditch 0.66 Ditch 1.66 Network Reach r7 REACH < -AREA> < -DIA> LENGTH SLOPE < n > DSGN Q % PIPE Ndepth %Depth Vact Vfull C_Area ID (Ac) (ft) (ft) ft /ft (cfe) (ft) (fps) (fps) e2 44.90 945.00 0.0004 0.0120 11.38 Ditch 0.95 Ditch 2.00 10/24/92 HCWL Inc — Chelan TUKWILA STORM DRAINAGE ANALYSIS FUTURE CONDITIONS FOR THE 2YR — 24 HR STORM EVENT PRECIPITATION EQUALS 1.95 INCHES page 9 REACH SUMMARY Network Reach r8 REACH < -AREA> < -DIA> LENGTH SLOPE < a > MGR Q % PIPE Hdepth %Depth Vact VfulI CJlrea ID (Ac) (ft) (ft) ft /ft (cfs) (ft) (fp8) (fps) Hl 900.00 0,0013 0.0300 Ditch Ditch 10/24/92 HCWL Inc - Chelan TUKWILA STORM DRAINAGE ANALYSIS EXISTING CONDITIONS FOR THE 10YR - 24HR STORM EVENT PRECIPITATION EQUALS 2.85 INCHES page I HYDROGRAPH SUMMARY PEAK TIME VOLUME HYD RUNOFF OF OF Contrib NUM RATE PEAK HYDRO Area cfs min. cf -AcFt Acres 1 6.391 480 111094 of 12.10 2 4.070 490 105560 of 11.50 3 10.219 480 216653 of 23.60 4 2.498 510 64263 of 7.00 5 5.832 490 131270 of 14.30 6 8.096 490 195533 of 21.30 7 17.574 490 412184 of 44.90 8 0.395 810 24151 of 8.34 9 2.371 490 61548 of 8.98 10 2.468 490 85699 cf 17.32 11 20.042 490 497883 of 62.22 12 4.039 530 117567 cf 15.80 13 23.354 500 615450 of 78.02 10/22/92 HOWL Inc -- Chelan TUKWILA STORM DRAINAGE ANALYSIS EXISTING CONDITIONS FOR THE 10YR - 24HR STORM EVENT PRECIPITATION EQUALS 2.85 INCHES Page 2 BASIN ID: a14 SBUH METHODOLOGY TOTAL AREA • RAINFALL TYPE PRECIPITATION TIME INTERVAL TIME OF CONC ABSTRACTION COEFF: TcReach - Sheet TcReach - Channel PEAK RATE: 2.76 BASIN ID: a2 SBUH METHODOLOGY TOTAL AREA • RAINFALL TYPE PRECIPITATION • TIME INTERVAL TIME OF CONC BASIN SUMMARY NAME: 7.00 Acres TYPE1A 2.85 inches 10.00 min 39.86 min 0.20 BASEFLOWS: 0.00 cfs PERVIOUS AREA AREA..: 1.05 Acres CN • 92.00 IMPERVIOUS AREA AREA..: 5.95 Acres CN • 98.00 L: 200.00 ne :0.1500 p2yr: 1.95 8:0.0150 L: 700.00 kc:17.00 s ;0.0020 cfs VOL: 1.48 Ac -ft TIME: 490 min NAME: 5.00 Acres TYPE1A 2.85 inches 10.00 min 36.90 min 0.20 BASEFLOWS: 0.00 cfs PERVIOUS AREA AREA..: 0.75 Acres • CN • 92.00 • IMPERVIOUS AREA AREA..: 4.25 Acres CN - 98.00 TeReach - Sheet L: 500.00 ns:0.1000 p2yr: 1.95 8:0.0150 PEAK RATE: 2.01 cfs VOL: 1.05 Ac -ft TIME: 490 min ABSTRACTION COEFF: BASIN ID: a5a SBUH METHODOLOGY TOTAL AREA • RAINFALL TYPE PRECIPITATION TIME INTERVAL TIME OF CONC ABSTRACTION COEFF: TcReach - Sheet TeReach - Shallow TcReach - Channel PEAK RATE: 2.80 NAME: 8.30 Acres TYPE1A 2.85 inches 10.00 min 62.28 min 0.20 BASEFLOWS: 0.00 cfs PERVIOUS AREA AREA..: 1.25 Acres CN • 92.00 IMPERVIOUS AREA AREA..: 7.05 Acres CN • 98.00 L: 300.00 ns:0.1500 p2yr: 1.95 s:0.0100 L: 300.00 ks :13.00 s:0.0100 L: 780.00 kc:17.00 e:0.0017 cfs VOL: 1.75 Ac -ft TIME: 490 min 10/22/92 HCWL Inc - Chelan TUKWILA STORM DRAINAGE ANALYSIS EXISTING CONDITIONS FOR THE 10YR - 24HR STORM EVENT PRECIPITATION EQUALS 2.85 INCHES page 3 BASIN ID: a5b SBUH METHODOLOGY TOTAL AREA. • RAINFALL TYPE PRECIPITATION TIME INTERVAL TIME OF CONC ABSTRACTION COEFF: BASIN SUMMARY NAME: 6.90 Acres TYPE1A 2.85 inches 10.00 min 14.72 min 0.20 BASEFLOWS: 0.00 PERVIOUS AREA AREA..: 1.03 CN • 92.00 IMPERVIOUS AREA AREA : 5 87 Cis Acres Acres CN....: 98.00 TcReach - Sheet L: 500.00 ns:0.0110 p2yr: 1.95 s:0.0020 TcReach - Channel L: 220.00 kc:67.00 s :0.0086 PEAK RATE: 3.59 cfs VOL: 1.45 Ac -ft TIME: BASIN ID: a7a SBUH METHODOLOGY TOTAL AREA • RAINFALL TYPE • PRECIPITATION • TIME INTERVAL TIME OF CONC ABSTRACTION COEFF: NAME: 3.20 Acres TYPE1A 2.85 inches 10.00 min 10.38 min 0.20 480 min BASEFLOWS: 0.00 PERVIOUS AREA AREA..: 0.48 CN • 92.00 IMPERVIOUS AREA AREA..: 2.72 CN • 98.00 TcReach - Sheet L: 340.00 ns:0.0110 p2yr: 1.95 8:0.0020 PEAK RATE: 1.75 cfs VOL: 0.67 Ac -ft TIME: 480 min cfs Acres Acres BASIN ID: a7b SBUH METHODOLOGY TOTAL AREA RAINFALL TYPE PRECIPITATION TIME INTERVAL TIME OF CONC ABSTRACTION COEFF: NAME: 5.20 Acres TYPE1A 2.85 inches 10.00 min 11.82 min 0.20 TcReach - Sheet L: 400.00 PEAK RATE: 2.80 cfs VOL: OCT 25 '92 1 1 31 BASEFLOWS: 0.00 PERVIOUS AREA AREA..: 0.78 CN • 92.00 IMPERVIOUS AREA AREA..: 4.42 CN 98.00 ns:0.0110 p2yr: 1.95 8:0.0020 1.10 Ac -ft TIME: 480 min cfs Acres Acres 5096822026 PAGE.025 10/22/92 HCWL Inc - Chelan TUKWILA STORM DRAINAGE ANALYSIS EXISTING CONDITIONS FOR THE 10YR - 24HR STORM EVENT PRECIPITATION EQUALS 2.85 INCHES page 4 BASIN ID: a9 SBUH METHODOLOGY TOTAL AREA • RAINFALL TYPE • PRECIPITATION TIME INTERVAL TIME OF CONC ABSTRACTION COEFF: TcReach - Sheet TcReach - Channel PEAK RATE: 5.83 nrT Qs 'ate 11* q1 BASIN SUMMARY NAME: 14.30 Acres TYPE1A 2.85 inches 10.00 min 35.29 min 0.20 L: 200.00 L:1300.00 cfs VOL: ns :0. kc:17 3.0 BASEFLOWS: 0,00 cfs PERVIOUS AREA AREA..: 2.15 Acres CN 92.00 IMPERVIOUS AREA AREA..: 12.15 Acres CN • 98.00 0110 p2yr: 1.95 8:0.0020 .00 s :0.0020 1 Ac -ft TIME: 490 min 10/24/92 HCWL Inc - Chelan TUKWILA STORM DRAINAGE ANALYSIS FUTURE CONDITIONS FOR THE 10YR - 24HR STORM EVENT PRECIPITATION EQUALS 2.85 INCHES page 1 BASIN ID: BA25 SBUH METHODOLOGY TOTAL AREA • RAINFALL TYPE PRECIPITATION TIME INTERVAL TIME OF CONC ABSTRACTION COEFF: TcReach - Sheet L TcReach - Channel L PEAK RATE: 4.62 c BASIN ID: NP25 SBUH METHODOLOGY TOTAL AREA - RAINFALL TYPE PRECIPITATION TIME INTERVAL TIME OF CONC ABSTRACTION COEFF: TcReach - Sheet TcReach - Channel PEAK RATE: 4.79 BASIN ID: SP25 SBUH METHODOLOGY TOTAL AREA • RAINFALL TYPE PRECIPITATION TIME INTERVAL TIME OF CONC ABSTRACTION COEFF: BASIN SUMMARY NAME: Post- Development Conditions 8.98 Acres TYPE1A 2.85 inches 10.00 min 11.49 min 0.20 BASEFLOWS: 0.00 cfs PERVIOUS AREA AREA..: 2.42 Acres CN • 90.00 IMPERVIOUS AREA AREA..: 6.56 Acres CN • 98.00 : 260.00 ns:0.0110 p2yr: 1.95 s:0.0150 :1070.00 kc:42.00 s:0.0030 fs VOL: 1.80 Ac -ft TIME: 480 min NAME: Post - Development Conditions 10.80 Acres TYPE1A 2.85 inches 10.00 min 19.25 min 0.20 BASEFLOWS: 0.00 cfs PERVIOUS AREA AREA..: 4.47 Acres CN • 90.00 IMPERVIOUS AREA AREA..: 6.33 Acres CN • 98.00 L: 300.00 ns:0.0110 p2yr: 1.95 s:0.0150 L:1200.00 kc:42.00 s:0.0010 cfs VOL: 2.07 Ac -ft TIME: 480 min TcReach - Sheet L TcReach - Channel L PEAK RATE: 3.22 c NAME: Post- Development Conditions 8.34 Acres TYPE1A 2.85 inches 10.00 min 18.51 min 0.20 BASEFLOWS: 0.00 cfs PERVIOUS AREA AREA..: 3.18 Acres CN • 80.30 IMPERVIOUS AREA AREA..: 5.16 Acres CN 98.00 300.00 ns:0.0110 p2yr: 1.95 s:0.0150 : 800.00 kc:17.00 s:0.0030 fa VOL: 1.43 Ac -ft TIME: 480 min OCT P9 '92 1 1 :'RP 5096822026 PAGE .027 10/24/92 HCWL Inc - Chelan TUKWILA STORM DRAINAGE ANALYSIS FUTURE CONDITIONS FOR THE 10YR - 24HR STORM EVENT PRECIPITATION EQUALS 2.85 INCHES page 2 BASIN ID: a14 SBUH METHODOLOGY TOTAL AREA RAINFALL TYPE PRECIPITATION TIME INTERVAL TIME OF CONC ABSTRACTION COEFF: BASIN SUMMARY NAME: Existing Conditions 7.00 Acres TYPE1A 2.85 inches 10.00 min 39.86 min 0.20 BASEFLOWS: 0.00 cfs • PERVIOUS AREA AREA..: 1.05 Acres • • IMPERVIOUS AREA AREA..: 5.95 Acres CN • 98.00 TcReach - Sheet L: 200.00 ns:0.1500 p2yr: 1.95 s:0.0150 TcReach Channel L: 700.00 kc:17.00 s :0.0020 PEAK RATE: 2.76 cfs VOL: 1.48 Ac-ft TIME: 490 min BASIN ID: a2 SBUH METHODOLOGY TOTAL AREA RAINFALL TYPE PRECIPITATION TIME INTERVAL TIME OF CONC ABSTRACTION COEFF: NAME: Existing Conditions 5.00 Acres TYPE1A 2.85 inches 10.00 min 36.90 min 0.20 BASEFLOWS: 0.00 cfs PERVIOUS AREA AREA..: 0.75 Acres CN 92.00 IMPERVIOUS AREA AREA..: 4.25 Acres CN • 98.00 TcReach - Sheet L: 500.00 ns:0.1000 p2yr: 1.95 s:0.0150 PEAK RATE: 2.01 cfs VOL: 1.05 Ac -ft TIME: 490 min BASIN ID: a5a SBUH METHODOLOGY TOTAL AREA RAINFALL TYPE PRECIPITATION TIME INTERVAL TIME OF CONC ABSTRACTION COEFF: NAME: Existing Conditions • BASEFLOWS: 0.00 cfs • PERVIOUS AREA • AREA..: 1.25 Acres • CN 92.00 IMPERVIOUS AREA AREA..: 7.05 Acres CN 98.00 TcReach - Sheet L: 300.00 ns:0.1500 p2yr: 1.95 s:0.0100 TcReach - Shallow L: 300.00 ks:13.00 x:0.0100 TcReach - Channel L: 780.00 kc :17.00 s:0.0017 PEAK RATE: 2.80 cfs VOL: 1.75 Ac -ft TIME: 490 min 8.30 Acres TYPE1A 2.85 inches 10.00 min 62.28 min 0.20 OCT 25 '92 11 :33 50968220266 PAGE.028 10/24/92 HCWL Inc - Chelan TUKWILA STORM DRAINAGE ANALYSIS FUTURE CONDITIONS FOR THE 10YR - 24HR STORM EVENT PRECIPITATION EQUALS 2.85 INCHES page 3 BASIN ID: a5b SBUH METHODOLOGY TOTAL AREA • RAINFALL TYPE PRECIPITATION TIME INTERVAL TIME OF CONC BASIN SUMMARY NAME: Existing Conditions 6.90 Acres TYPE1A 2.85 inches 10.00 min 14.72 min BASEFLOWS: 0.00 cfs PERVIOUS AREA AREA..: 1.03 Acres CN • 92.00 IMPERVIOUS AREA ABSTRACTION COEFF: 0.20 AREA..: 5.87 Acres CN • 98.00 TcReach - Sheet L: 500.00 ns:0.0110 p2yr: 1.95 x:0.0020 TcReach - Channel L: 220.00 kc:67.00 8:0.0086 PEAK RATE: 3.59 cfs VOL: 1.45 Ac -ft TIME: 480 min BASIN ID: a7a SBUH METHODOLOGY TOTAL AREA RAINFALL TYPE PRECIPITATION • TIME INTERVAL TIME OF CONC ABSTRACTION COEFF: NAME: Existing Conditions 3.20 Acres TYPE1A 2.85 inches 10.00 min 10.38 min 0.20 BASEFLOWS: 0.00 cfs PERVIOUS AREA AREA..: 0.48 Acres CN 92.00 IMPERVIOUS AREA AREA..: 2.72 Acres CN • 98.00 TcReach - Sheet L: 340.00 ns:0.0110 p2yr: 1.95 s:0.0020 PEAK RATE: 1.75 cfs VOL: 0.67 Ac -ft TIME: 480 in BASIN ID: a7b SBUH METHODOLOGY TOTAL AREA RAINFALL TYPE PRECIPITATION TIME INTERVAL TIME OF CONC NAME: Existing Conditions 5.20 Acres TYPE1A 2.85 inches 10.00 min 11.82 min ABSTRACTION COEFF: 0.20 TcReach - Sheet PEAK RATE: 2.80 nrT 2 ,(712 11 e r4q BASEFLOWS: 0.00 cfs PERVIOUS AREA AREA..: 0.78 Acres CN 92.00 IMPERVIOUS AREA AREA..: 4.42 Acres CN 98.00 L: 400.00 ns:0.0110 p2yr: 1.95 8:0.0020 cfs VOL: 1.10 Ac -ft TIME: 480 min �aa�n ?gin ^� oc.rp moo 10/24/92 HCWL Inc - Chelan TUKWILA STORM DRAINAGE ANALYSIS FUTURE CONDITIONS FOR THE 10YR - 24HR STORM EVENT PRECIPITATION EQUALS 2.85 INCHES page 4 BASIN ID: a9 SBUH METHODOLOGY TOTAL AREA RAINFALL TYPE PRECIPITATION TIME INTERVAL • TIME OF CONC ABSTRACTION COEFF: BASIN SUMMARY NAME: Existing Conditions 14.30 Acres TYPE1A 2.85 inches 10.00 min 35.29 min 0.20 BASEFLOWS: 0.00 PERVIOUS AREA AREA..: 2.15 CN 92.00 IMPERVIOUS AREA AREA..: 12.15 CN • 98.00 TcReach - Sheet L: 200.00 ns:0.0110 p2yr: 1.95 s:0.0020 TcReach - Channel L:1300.00 kc:17.00 s:0.0020 PEAK RATE: 5.83 c±s VOL: 3.01 Ac -ft TIME: 490 min cis Acres Acres 10/24/92 HCWL Inc - Chelan TUKWILA STORM DRAINAGE ANALYSIS FUTURE CONDITIONS FOR THE 10YR - 24HR STORM EVENT PRECIPITATION EQUALS 2.85 INCHES page 5 HYDROGRAPH SUMMARY PEAK TIME VOLUME HYD RUNOFF OF OF Contrib NUM RATE PEAK HYDRO Area cfs min. cf -AcFt Acres 1 6.391 480 111094 cf 12.10 2 4.070 490 105560 of 11.50 3 10.219 480 216653 of 23.60 4 2.498 510 64263 of 7.00 5 5.832 490 131270 of 14.30 6 8.096 490 195533 of 21.30 7 17.574 490 412184 cf 44.90 8 3.218 480 62406 cf 8.34 9 4.624 480 78588 of 8.98 10 7.642 480 140994 of 17.32 11 23.528 500 553209 of 62.22 12 6.325 490 136046 cf 15.80 13 29.482 500 689255 of 78.02 OCT 25 '92 11:34 ri171gPRP2G19r p rc n7.1 10/24/92 HCWL Inc - Chelan TUKWILA STORM DRAINAGE ANALYSIS EXISTING CONDITIONS FOR THE 25YR - 24HR STORM EVENT PRECIPITATION EQUALS 3.35 INCHES page 1. HYDROGRAPH SUMMARY PEAK TIME VOLUME HYD RUNOFF OF OF Contrib NUM RATE PEAK HYDRO Area cfs min. cf-AcFt Acres 1 7.609 480 132809 of 12.10 2 4.876 490 126197 cf 11.50 3 12.226 480 259005 cf 23.60 4 2.993 510 76825 cf 7.00 5 6.949 490 156932 cf 14.30 6 9.680 490 233757 cf 21.30 7 21.144 490 492760 of 44.90 8 0.501 1460 33549 of 8.34 9 3.007 490 76642 of 8.98 10 3.008 490 110191 of 17.32 11 24.152 490 602952 cf 62.22 12 5.053 520 144469 of 15.80 13 28.248 490 747421 cf 78.02 10/22/92 HCWL Inc - Chelan TUKWILA STORM DRAINAGE ANALYSIS EXISTING CONDITIONS FOR THE 25YR - 24HR STORM EVENT PRECIPITATION EQUALS 3.35 INCHES page 1 BASIN ID: BA25 SBUH METHODOLOGY TOTAL AREA RAINFALL TYPE PRECIPITATION TIME INTERVAL TIME OF CONC ABSTRACTION COEFF: TcReach - Sheet L TcReach - Channel L PEAK RATE: 3.01 c BASIN ID: NP25 SBUH METHODOLOGY TOTAL AREA RAINFALL TYPE PRECIPITATION TIME INTERVAL TIME OF CONC ABSTRACTION COEFF: TcReach - Sheet TcReach - Channel PEAK RATE: 3.16 BASIN ID: SP25 SBUH METHODOLOGY TOTAL AREA RAINFALL TYPE PRECIPITATION TIME INTERVAL TIME OF CONC • • • ABSTRACTION COEFF: TcReach - Sheet TcReach - Channel PEAK RATE: 0.57 BASIN SUMMARY NAME: Pre - Development Conditions 8.98 Acres TYPE1A 3.35 inches 10.00 min 49.40 min 0.20 BASEFLOWS: 0.00 cfs PERVIOUS AREA AREA..: 8.50 Acres CN 90.00 IMPERVIOUS AREA AREA..: 0.48 Acres CN • 98.00 : 260.00 ns:0.1500 p2yr: 1.95 s:0.0150 :1070.00 kc :17.00 s:0.0030 fs VOL: 1.76 Ac -ft TIME: 490 min NAME: Pre - Development Conditions 10.90 Acres TYPE1A 3.35 inches 10.00 min 61.82 min 0.20 L: 300.00 L; 900.00 cfs VOL: BASEFLOWS: 0.00 cfs PERVIOUS AREA AREA..: 10.00 Acres CN • 89.00 IMPERVIOUS AREA AREA..: 0.80 Acres CN • 98.00 ns:0.1500 p2yr: 1.95 s:0.0150 kc:17.00 s:0.0010 2.06 Ac -ft TIME: 490 min NAME: Pre - Development Conditions 8.34 Acres TYPE1A 3.35 inches 10.00 min 166.99 min BASEFLOWS: 0.00 cfs PERVIOUS AREA AREA..: 8.00 Acres CN - 72.00 IMPERVIOUS AREA 0.20 AREA..: 0.34 Acres CN • 98.00 L: 230.00 ns:0.8000 p2yr: 1.95 8:0.0150 L: 700.00 kc:5.00 5:0.0014 cfs VOL: 0.77 Ac -ft TIME: 670 min 10/22/92 HCWL Inc - Chelan TUKWILA STORM DRAINAGE ANALYSIS EXISTING CONDITIONS FOR THE 25YR - 24HR STORM EVENT PRECIPITATION EQUALS 3.35 INCHES page 2 BASIN ID: a14 SBUH METHODOLOGY TOTAL AREA RAINFALL TYPE PRECIPITATION TIME INTERVAL TIME OF CONC ABSTRACTION COEFF: BASIN SUMMARY NAME: 7.00 Acres TYPE1A 3.35 inches 10.00 min 39.86 min 0.20 BASEFLOWS: 0.00 cfs PERVIOUS AREA AREA..: 1.05 Acres CN • 92.00 IMPERVIOUS AREA AREA..: 5.95 Acres CN • 98.00 TcReach - Sheet L: 200.00 ns:0.1500 p2yr: 1.95 s:0.0150 TcReach - Channel L: 700.00 kc:17.00 s :0.0020 PEAK RATE: 3.29 cfs VOL: 1.76 Ac -ft TIME: 490 min BASIN ID: a2 SBUH METHODOLOGY TOTAL AREA RAINFALL TYPE PRECIPITATION TIME INTERVAL TIME OF CONC ABSTRACTION COEFF: NAME: • BASEFLOWS: 0.00 cfs • PERVIOUS AREA • AREA..: 0.75 Acres CN • 92.00 • IMPERVIOUS AREA AREA..: 4.25 Acres CN • 98.00 TcReach - Sheet L: 500.00 ns:0.1000 p2yr: 1.95 s:0.0150 PEAK RATE: 2.40 cfs VOL: 1.26 Ac -ft TIME: 490 min 5.00 Acres TYPE1A 3.35 inches 10.00 min 36.90 min 0.20 BASIN ID: a5a SBUH METHODOLOGY TOTAL AREA RAINFALL TYPE PRECIPITATION TIME INTERVAL TIME OF CONC ABSTRACTION COEFF: NAME: • BASEFLOWS: 0.00 cfs • PERVIOUS AREA • AREA..: 1.25 Acres • CN • 92.00 IMPERVIOUS AREA AREA..: 7.05 Acres CN • 98.00 TcReach - Sheet L: 300.00 ns:0.1500 p2yr: 1.95 s :0.0100 TcReach - Shallow L: 300.00 ks:13.00 s:0.0100 TcReach - Channel L: 780.00 kc:17.00 s:0.0017 PEAK RATE: 3.34 cfs VOL: 2.09 Ac -ft TIME: 490 min 8.30 Acres TYPE1A 3.35 inches 10.00 min 62.28 min 0.20 10/22/92 HCWL Inc - Chelan TUKWILA STORM DRAINAGE ANALYSIS EXISTING CONDITIONS FOR THE 25YR - 24HR STORM EVENT PRECIPITATION EQUALS 3.35 INCHES page 3 BASIN ID: a5b SBUI-I METHODOLOGY TOTAL AREA RAINFALL TYPE PRECIPITATION TIME INTERVAL TIME OF CONC BASIN SUMMARY NAME: 6.90 Acres TYPE1A 3.35 inches 10.00 min 14.72 min ABSTRACTION COEFF: 0.20 TcReach - Sheet L TcReach - Channel L PEAK RATE: 4.27 c BASIN ID: a7a SBUH METHODOLOGY TOTAL AREA • RAINFALL TYPE • PRECIPITATION TIME INTERVAL. TIME OF CONC ABSTRACTION COEFF: BASEFLOWS: 0. PERVIOUS AREA AREA..: 1. CN • 92. IMPERVIOUS AREA AREA..: 5. CN 98. : 500.00 ns:0.0110 p2yr: 1.95 s: : 220.00 kc:67.00 s :0.0086 fs VOL: 1.74 Ac -ft TIME: NAME: 3.20 Acres TYPE1A 3.35 inches 10.00 min 10.38 min 0.20 TcReach - Sheet L: 340.00 ns:0.0 PEAK RATE: 2.09 cfs VOL: 0.81 BASIN ID: alb SBUH METHODOLOGY TOTAL AREA RAINFALL TYPE PRECIPITATION TIME INTERVAL TIME OF CONC ABSTRACTION COEFF: NAME: 5.20 Acres TYPE1A 3.35 inches 10.00 min 11.82 min 0.20 BASEFLOWS: 0. PERVIOUS AREA AREA..: 0. CN • 92. IMPERVIOUS AREA AREA..: 2. CN • 98. 110 p2yr: 1.95 s: Ac -ft TIME: 00 cfs 03 Acres 00 87 Acres 00 0.0020 480 min 00 cfs 48 Acres 00 72 Acres 00 0.0020 480 min • BASEFLOWS: 0.00 cfs PERVIOUS AREA • AREA..: 0.78 Acres • IMPERVIOUS AREA AREA..: 4.42 Acres CN 98.00 TcReach - Sheet L: 400.00 n3:0.0110 p2yr: 1.95 s :0.0020 PEAK RATE: 3.34 cfs VOL: 1.31 Ac -ft TIME: 480 min 10/24/92 HCWL Inc - Chelan TUKWILA STORM DRAINAGE ANALYSIS FUTURE CONDITIONS FOR THE 10YR - 24HR STORM EVENT PRECIPITATION EQUALS 2.85 INCHES page 1 BASIN ID: EA25 SBUH METHODOLOGY TOTAL AREA • RAINFALL TYPE PRECIPITATION TIME INTERVAL TIME OF CONC ABSTRACTION COEFF: BASIN SUMMARY NAME: Post - Development Conditions 8.98 Acres TYPE1A 2.85 inches 10.00 min 11.49 min 0.20 BASEFLOWS: 0.00 cfs PERVIOUS AREA AREA..: 2.42 Acres CN • 90.00 IMPERVIOUS AREA AREA..: 6.56 Acres CN • 98.00 TcReach - Sheet L: 260.00 ns:0.0110 p2yr: 1.95 8:0.0150 TcReach - Channel L:1070.00 kc:42.00 s:0.0030 PEAK RATE: 4.62 cfs VOL: 1.80 Ac -ft TIME: 480 min BASIN ID: NP25 SBUH METHODOLOGY TOTAL AREA RAINFALL TYPE PRECIPITATION TIME INTERVAL TIME OF CONC ABSTRACTION COEFF: NAME: Post - Development Conditions 10.80 Acres TYPE1A 2.85 inches 10.00 min 19.25 min 0.20 BASEFLOWS: 0.00 cfs PERVIOUS AREA AREA..: 4.47 Acres CN • 90.00 IMPERVIOUS AREA AREA..: 6.33 Acres CN • 98.00 TcReach - Sheet L: 300.00 ns:0.0110 p2yr: 1.95 s:0.0150 TcReach - Channel L:1200.00 kc:42.00 s :0.0010 PEAK RATE: 4.79 cfs VOL: 2.07 Ac -ft TIME: 480 min BASIN ID: SP25 SBUH METHODOLOGY TOTAL AREA • RAINFALL TYPE PRECIPITATION TIME INTERVAL TIME OF CONC ABSTRACTION COEFF: NAME: Post- Development Conditions 8.34 Acres TYPE1A 2.85 inches 10.00 min 18.51 min 0.20 BASEFLOWS: 0.00 cfs PERVIOUS AREA AREA..: 3.18 Acres CN • 80.30 IMPERVIOUS AREA AREA..: 5.16 Acres CN • 98.00 TcReach - Sheet L: 300.00 ns:0.0110 p2yr: 1.95 8:0.0150 TcReach - Channel L: 800.00 kc:17.00 9:0.0030 PEAK RATE: 3.22 cfs VOL: 1.43 Ac -ft TIME: 480 min 10/24/92 HCWL Inc -- Chelan TUKWILA STORM DRAINAGE ANALYSIS EXISTING CONDITIONS FOR THE 25YR - 24HR STORM EVENT PRECIPITATION EQUALS 3.35 INCHES page 1 REACH SUMMARY DITCH REACH ID No. Ni Ditch Length: 800.00 ft Ditch Width: 4.00 ft Side Slopel : 3.00 Ditch Slope: 0.0013 ft /ft Side Slope2 : 3.00 Contrib Bas: Mannings n :0.0300 Dn Invert 10.00 ft Dn W.S. Elev :0.0000 Num Steps : 10 Trib Area: 62.22 Ac. Design Flow : 23.61 cfs Depth 1.55 ft Vel 1.76 fps Upstream W.S. Elev: 0.00 ft. DITCH REACH ID No. N2 Ditch Length: 700.00 ft Ditch Width: 2.00 ft Side Slopel :50.00 Ditch Slope: 0.0010 ft /ft Side Slope2 :50.00 Contrib Bas: NP25 Mannings n :0.0300 Dn Invert : 9.30 ft Dn W.S. Elev :0.0000 Num Steps : 10 Trib Area: 15.80 Ac. Design Flow : 5.05 cfs Depth 0.41 ft Vel • 0.56 fps Upstream W.S. Elev: 0.00 ft. DITCH REACH ID No. ani Ditch Length: 750.00 ft Ditch Width: 0.00 ft Side Slopel : 7.00 Ditch Slope: 0.0100 ft /ft Side Slope2 : 7.00 Contrib Bas: a2 Mannings n :0.0300 Dn Invert : 10.00 ft Dn W.S. Elev :0.0000 Num Steps : 10 10/24/92 HCWL Inc - Chelan TUKWILA STORM DRAINAGE ANALYSIS EXISTING CONDITIONS FOR THE 25YR - 24HR STORM EVENT PRECIPITATION EQUALS 3.35 INCHES page 2 REACH SUMMARY DITCH REACH ID No. bs2 Ditch Length:1300.00 ft Ditch Width: 0.00 ft Side Slopel : 7.00 Ditch Slope: 0.0014 ft /ft Side Slope2 : 7.00 Contrib Bas: a14 Mannings n :0.0300 Dn Invert : 12.09 ft Dn W.S. Elev:0.0000 Num Steps : 10 Trib Area: 7.00 Ac. Design Flow : Depth 0.69 ft Vel . • Upstream W.S. Elev: 0.00 ft. 2.99 cfs 0.91 fps DITCH REACH ID No. c2 Ditch Length: 285.00 ft Ditch Width: 3.00 ft Side Slopel : 3.00 Ditch Slope: 0.0017 ft /ft Side Slope2 : 3.00 Contrib Bas: a5a Mannings n :0.0300 Dn Invert : 14.64 ft Dn W.S. Elev :0.0000 Num Steps : 10 Trib Area: 8.30 Ac. Design Flow : Depth 0.59 ft Vel : Upstream W.S. Elev: 0.00 ft. PIPE REACH From: To: Pipe Diameter: Pipe Length : Up invert . Collection Area: Design Flow . Pipe Capacity : Design Vel • Pipe Full Vel . PIPE REACH From: To: Pipe Diameter: Pipe Length . Up invert • Collection Area: Design Flow • Pipe Capacity . Design Vel • Pipe Full Vel : ID No. c3 2.00 ft 25.00 ft 11.79 ft 11.50 Ac. 4.88 cfs 18.65 cfs 5.00 fps 5.94 fps ID No. d2 2.00 ft 490.00 ft 16.85 ft 6.90 Ac. 4.27 cfs 22.79 cfs 5.56 fps 7.25 fps n: 0.0100 s: 0.0040 down invert: Dsgn Depth: Travel Time: n: 0.0120 s: 0.0086 down invert: 3.26 cfs 1.15 fps 11.69 ft 0.70 ft 0.08 min 12.64 ft Dsgn Depth: 0.59 ft Travel Time: 1.47 min 10/24/92 HCWL Inc - Chelan TUKWILA STORM DRAINAGE ANALYSIS EXISTING CONDITIONS FOR THE 25YR - 24HR STORM EVENT PRECIPITATION EQUALS 3.35 INCHES page 3 PIPE REACH From: To: Pipe Diameter: Pipe Length Up invert Collection Area: Design Flow Pipe Capacity Design Vel • Pipe Full Vel : REACH SUMMARY ID No. d3 2.00 ft 152.00 ft 13.03 ft 12.10 Ac. 7.61 cfs 30.93 cfs 8.15 fps 9.84 fps n: 0.0100 s: 0.0110 down invert: 11.36 ft Dsgn Depth: 0.68 ft Travel Time: 0.31 min DITCH REACH ID No. el Ditch Length: 130.00 ft Ditch Width: 6.00 ft Side Slopel : 0.01 Ditch Slope: 0.0004 ft /ft Side Slope2 : 0.01 Contrib Bas: Mannings n :0.0120 Dn Invert : 11.30 ft Dn W.S. Elev:0.0000 Num Steps : 10 Trib Area: 23.60 Ac. Design Flow : Depth 0.99 ft Vel Upstream W.S. Elev: 0.00 ft. 12.23 cfs 2.05 fps DITCH REACH ID No. e2 Ditch Length: 345.00 ft Ditch Width: 6.00 ft Side Slopel : 0.01 Ditch Slope: 0.0004 ft /ft Side Slope2 : 0.01 Contrib Bas: Mannings n :0.0120 Dn Invert : 11.16 ft Dn W.S. Elev:0.0000 Nun Steps : 10 Trib Area: 44.90 Ac. Design Flow : Depth 1.61 ft Vel Upstream W.S. Elev: 0.00 ft. 24.87 cfs 2.57 fps Network Reach rl REACH < -AREA> ( -DIA> LENGTH SLOPE < a > DSG11 Q X PIPE Ndepth %Depth Vact Vfull C_Area ID (Ac) (ft) (ft) ft /ft (cfs) - (ft) (fpe) (fpe) and 5.00 750.00 0.0100 0.0300 2.32 Ditch 0.43 Ditch 1.78 a2 02 15.80 700.00 0.0010 0.0300 5.05 Ditch 0.41 Ditch 0.56 HP25 10/24/92 HCWL Inc - Chelan TUKWILA STORM DRAINAGE ANALYSIS EXISTING CONDITIONS FOR THE 25YR - 24HR STORM EVENT PRECIPITATION EQUALS 3.35 INCHES Page 4 REACH SUMMARY Network Reach r2 REACH < -AREA> < -DIA> LENGTH SLOPE < n > DSGN Q % PIPE Ndepth %Depth Vact Vfull CJlrea ID (Ac) (ft) (ft) ft /ft (cfa) (ft) (fps) (fpe) d2 6.90 2,00 490.00 0.0086 0.0120 4.27 18.75 0.59 29.33 5.56 7,25 a5b d3 12.10 2.00 152.00 0.0110 0.0100 7.61 24.60 0.68 33.79 8.15 9.84 alb Network Reach r3 REACH < -AREA> < -DIA> ID (Ac) (ft) LENGTH SLOPE < n > DSGN Q % PIPE Ndepth %Depth Pact Vfull CJ1rea (ft) ft /ft (cfs) (ft) (fpa) (fpe) c2 8.30 c3 11.50 2.00 Network Reach r4 REACH < -ARIA> < -DIA> ID (Ac) (ft) 285.00 0.0017 0.0300 3.26 Ditch 0.59 Ditch 1.15 a5a 25.00 0.0040 0.0100 4.88 26.15 0.70 34.90 5.00 5.94 a7a LENGTH SLOPE < n > DSGN Q % PUB Ndepth %Depth Vact Vfull C_Area (ft) ft /ft (cfa) (ft) (fps) (fps) bs2 7.00 Network Reach r5 REACH < -ARIA> < -DIA> ID (Ac) (ft) 1300.00 0.0014 0.0300 2.99 Ditch 0.69 Ditch 0.91 a14 LENGTH SLOPE < n > DSGN Q % PIPE Ndepth %Depth Vact Vfull C_Irea (ft) ft /ft (cfe) - --- -- (ft) (fps) (fpe) bal -p 8.34 Network Reach r6 REACH < -AREA> < -DIA> ID (Ac) (ft) 1070.00 0.0030 0.0800 0.50 Ditch 0.36 Ditch 0.43 SP25 LENGTH SLOPE < n > DSGN Q % PIPE Ndepth %Depth Vact Vfull CJlrea (ft) ft /ft (cfs) (ft) (fpa) (fps) el 23.60 130.00 0.0004 0.0120 12.23 Ditch 0.99 Ditch 2.05 Network Reach r7 REACH < -ARBA> < -DIA> LENGTH SLOPS < a > DSGN Q % PIPB Ndepth %Depth Vact Vfull Cjrea ID (Ac) (ft) (ft) ft /ft (cfs) (ft) (fps) (fpe) e2 44.90 345.00 0.0004 0.0120 24.87 Ditch 1.61 Ditch 2.57 10/24/92 HCWL Inc — Chelan TUKWILA STORM DRAINAGE ANALYSIS EXISTING CONDITIONS FOR THE 25YR — 24HR STORM EVENT PRECIPITATION EQUALS 3.35 INCHES page 5 Network Reach r8 REACH < -AREA> < -DIA> ID (Ac) (ft) REACH SUMMARY LENGTH SLOPE < n > DSGN Q x PIPE Ndepth %Depth Vact Vfull Urea (ft) ft /ft (cfe) (ft) (fp8) (fpe) Ni 62.22 800.00 0.0013 0,0300 23.61 Ditch 1.55 Ditch 1.76 10/24/92 HOWL Inc - Chelan TUKWILA STORM DRAINAGE ANALYSIS FUTURE CONDITIONS FOR THE 25YR - 24HR STORM EVENT PRECIPITATION EQUALS 3.35 INCHES page 1 BASIN ID: BA25 SBUH METHODOLOGY TOTAL AREA RAINFALL TYPE PRECIPITATION TIME INTERVAL TIME OF CONC ABSTRACTION COEFF: BASIN SUMMARY NAME: Post--Development Conditions 8.98 Acres TYPE1A 3.35 inches 10.00 min 11.49 min 0.20 BASEFLOWS: 0.00 cfs PERVIOUS AREA AREA..: 2.42 Acres CN • 90.00 IMPERVIOUS AREA AREA..: 8.56 Acres CN • 98.00 TcReach - Sheet L: 260.00 ns:0.0110 p2yr: 1.95 s:0.0150 TcReach - Channel L:1070.00 kc:42.00 s:0.0030 PEAK RATE: 5.55 cfs VOL: 2.17 Ac -ft TIME: 480 min BASIN ID: NP25 SBUH METHODOLOGY TOTAL AREA • RAINFALL TYPE PRECIPITATION TIME INTERVAL TIME OF CONC ABSTRACTION COEFF: NAME: Post - Development Conditions 10.80 Acres TYPE1A 3.35 inches 10.00 min 19.25 min 0.20 BASEFLOWS: 0.00 cfs PERVIOUS AREA AREA..: 4.47 Acres CN • 90.00 IMPERVIOUS AREA AREA..: 6.33 Acres CN - 98.00 TcReach - Sheet L: 300.00 ns:0.0110 p2yr: 1.95 6:0.0150 TcReach - Channel L:1200.00 kc:42.00 s:0.0010 PEAK RATE: 5.80 cfs VOL: 2.50 Ac -ft TIME: 480 min BASIN ID: SP25 SBUH METHODOLOGY TOTAL AREA • RAINFALL TYPE PRECIPITATION TIME INTERVAL TIME OF CONC ABSTRACTION COEFF: NAME: Post - Development Conditions 8.34 Acres TYPE1A 3.35 inches 10.00 min 18.51 min 0.20 BASEFLOWS: 0.00 cfs PERVIOUS AREA AREA..: 3.18 Acres CN • 80.30 IMPERVIOUS AREA AREA..: 5.16 Acres CN • 98.00 TcReach - Sheet L: 300.00 ns:0.0110 p2yr: 1.95 e:0.0150 TcReach - Channel L: 800.00 kc :17.00 6:0.0030 PEAK RATE: 3.95 cfs VOL: 1.75 Ac -ft TIME: 480 min 10/24/92 HCWL Inc - Chelan TUKWILA STORM DRAINAGE ANALYSIS FUTURE CONDITIONS FOR THE 25YR - 24HR STORM EVENT PRECIPITATION EQUALS 3.35 INCHES page 2 BASIN ID: a14 SBUH METHODOLOGY TOTAL AREA • RAINFALL TYPE PRECIPITATION TIME INTERVAL TIME OF CONC ABSTRACTION COEFF: BASIN SUMMARY NAME: Existing Conditions 7.00 Acres TYPE1A 3.35 inches 10.00 min 39.86 min 0.20 BASEFLOWS: 0.00 cfs PERVIOUS AREA AREA..: 1.05 Acres CN 92.00 IMPERVIOUS AREA AREA..: 5.95 Acres CN 98.00 TcReach - Sheet L: 200.00 ns:0.1500 p2yr: 1.95 s:0.0150 TcReach - Channel L: 700.00 kc:17.00 s :0.0020 PEAK RATE: 3.29 cfs VOL: 1.76 Ac -ft TIME: 490 min BASIN ID: a2 SBUH METHODOLOGY TOTAL AREA RAINFALL TYPE PRECIPITATION TIME INTERVAL TIME OF CONC ABSTRACTION COEFF: NAME: Existing Conditions • BASEFLOWS: 0.00 cfs • PERVIOUS AREA AREA..: 0.75 Acres CN • 92.00 5.00 Acres TYPE1A 3.35 inches 10.00 min 36.90 min 0.20 IMPERVIOUS AREA AREA..: 4.25 Acres CN • 98.00 TcReach - Sheet L: 500.00 ns :0.1000 p2yr: 1.95 s:0.0150 PEAK RATE: 2.40 cfs VOL: 1.26 Ac -ft TIME: 490 min BASIN ID: a5a SBUH METHODOLOGY TOTAL AREA RAINFALL TYPE PRECIPITATION TIME INTERVAL TIME OF CONC ABSTRACTION COEFF: NAME: Existing Conditions 8.30 Acres TYPE1A 3.35 inches 10.00 min 62.28 min 0.20 • BASEFLOWS: 0.00 cfs • PERVIOUS AREA • AREA..: 1.25 Acres CN • 92.00 • IMPERVIOUS AREA AREA..: 7.05 Acres CN • 98.00 TcReach - Sheet L: 300.00 ns:0.1500 p2yr: 1.95 s:0.0100 TcReach - Shallow L: 300.00 ks :13.00 s:0.0100 TcReach - Channel L: 780.00 kc:17.00 s :0.0017 PEAK RATE: 3.34 cfs VOL: 2.09 A`c -ft TIME: 490 min 10/24/92 HCWL Inc - Chelan TUKWILA STORM DRAINAGE ANALYSIS FUTURE CONDITIONS FOR THE 25YR - 24HR STORM EVENT PRECIPITATION EQUALS 3.35 INCHES page 3 BASIN ID: a5b SBUH METHODOLOGY TOTAL AREA • RAINFALL TYPE PRECIPITATION TIME INTERVAL TIME OF CONC ABSTRACTION COEFF: TcReach - Sheet L TcReach - Channel L PEAK RATE: 4.27 c BASIN ID: a7a SBUH METHODOLOGY TOTAL AREA RAINFALL TYPE PRECIPITATION TIME INTERVAL TIME OF CONC ABSTRACTION COEFF: BASIN SUMMARY NAME: Existing Conditions 6.90 Acres TYPE1A 3.35 inches 10.00 min 14.72 min 0.20 BASEFLOWS: 0.00 cfs PERVIOUS AREA AREA..: 1.03 Acres CN • 92.00 IMPERVIOUS AREA AREA..: 5.87 Acres CN 98.00 : 500.00 ns:0.0110 p2yr: 1.95 8:0.0020 : 220.00 kc:67.00 x:0.0086 fa VOL: 1.74 Ac -ft TIME: 480 min NAME: Existing Conditions 3.20 Acres TYPE1A 3.35 inches 10.00 min 10.38 min 0.20 BASEFLOWS: 0.00 cfs PERVIOUS AREA AREA..: 0.48 Acres CN 92.00 IMPERVIOUS AREA AREA..: 2.72 Acres CN 98.00 TcReach - Sheet L: 340.00 ns:0.0110 p2yr: 1.95 s:0.0020 PEAK RATE: 2.09 cfs VOL: 0.81 Ac -ft TIME: 480 min BASIN ID: alb SBUH METHODOLOGY TOTAL AREA RAINFALL TYPE PRECIPITATION TIME INTERVAL TIME OF CONC ABSTRACTION COEFF: 0.20 NAME: Existing Conditions 5.20 Acres TYPE1A 3.35 inches 10.00 min 11.82 min TcReach - Sheet PEAK RATE: 3.34 BASEFLOWS: 0.00 cfs PERVIOUS AREA AREA..: 0.78 Acres CN • 92.00 IMPERVIOUS AREA AREA..: 4.42 Acres CN • 98.00 L: 400.00 ns:0.0110 p2yr: 1.95 e:0.0020 cfe VOL: 1.31 Ac -ft TIME: 480 min 10/24/92 HCWL Inc - Chelan TUKWILA STORM DRAINAGE ANALYSIS FUTURE CONDITIONS FOR THE 25YR - 24HR STORM EVENT PRECIPITATION EQUALS 3.35 INCHES page 4 BASIN ID: a9 SBUH METHODOLOGY TOTAL AREA RAINFALL TYPE PRECIPITATION TIME INTERVAL TIME OF CONC ABSTRACTION COEFF: BASIN SUMMARY NAME: Existing Conditions 14.30 Acres TYPE1A 3.35 inches 10.00 min 35.29 min 0.20 BASEFLOWS: 0.00 cfs PERVIOUS AREA AREA..: 2.15 Acres CN • 92.00 IMPERVIOUS AREA AREA..: 12.15 Acres CN • 98.00 ThReach - Sheet L: 200.00 ns:0.0110 p2yr: 1.95 s:0.0020 TcReach - Channel L:1300.00 kc:17.00 s:0.0020 PEAK RATE: 6.95 cfs VOL: 3.60 Ac -ft TIME: 490 min 10/24/92 HCWL Inc - Chelan TUKWILA STORM DRAINAGE ANALYSIS FUTURE CONDITIONS FOR THE 25YR - 24HR STORM EVENT PRECIPITATION EQUALS 3.35 INCHES page 5 HYDROGRAPH SUMMARY PEAK TIME VOLUME HYD RUNOFF OF OF Contrib NUM RATE PEAK HYDRO Area cfe min. cf -AcFt Acres 1 7.609 480 132809 cf 12.10 2 4.876 490 126197 cf 11.50 3 12.226 480 259005 cf 23.60 4 2.993 510 76825 of 7.00 5 6.949 490 156932 of 14.30 6 9.680 490 233757 of 21.30 7 21.144 490 492760 of 44.90 8 3.950 480 76148 of 8.34 9 5.550 480 94498 of 8.98 10 9.501 480 170645 cf 17.32 11 28.615 500 663452 of 62.22 12 7.696 500 163937 cf 15.80 13 36.311 500 827389 of 78.02 HCWL Inc - Chelan page 1 10/24/92 TUKWILA STORM DRAINAGE ANALYSIS FUTURE CONDITIONS FOR THE 25YR - 24HR STORM EVENT PRECIPITATION EQUALS 3.35 INCHES PIPE REACH From: To: Pipe Diameter: Pipe Length . Up invert . Collection Area: Design Flow • Pipe Capacity . Design Vel • Pipe Full Vet . ID No. 2.00 ft 1070.00 ft 14.37 ft REACH SUMMARY BA1 8.34 Ac. 3.95 cfs 13.46 cfs 3.72 fps 4.28 fps n: 0.0120 s: 0.0030 down invert: 11.16 ft Dsgn Depth: 0.74 ft Travel Time: 4.79 min DITCH REACH ID No. Ni Ditch Length: 900.00 ft Ditch Width: 12.00 ft Side Slopel : 2.00 Ditch Slope: 0.0013 ft /ft Side Slope2 : 2.00 Contrib Bas: Mannings n :0.0300 Dn Invert : 10.00 ft Dn W.S. Elev:0.0000 Num Steps : 10 Trib Area: 62.22 Ac. Design Flow : 28.61 cfs Depth • 1.15 ft Vel 1.74 fps Upstream W.S. Elev: 0.00 ft. DITCH REACH ID No. N2 Ditch Length: 300.00 ft Ditch Width: 12.00 ft Side Slopel : 2.00 Ditch Slope: 0.0010 ft /ft Side Slope2 : 2.00 Contrib Bas: NP25 Mannings n :0.0300 Dn Invert : 9.70 ft Dn W.S. Elev:0.0000 Num Steps : 10 Trib Area: 15.80 Ac. Design Flow : 7.70 cfs Depth • 0.58 ft Vel 1.02 fps Upstream W.S. Elev: 0.00 ft. DITCH REACH ID No. and Ditch Length: 750.00 ft Ditch Width: 0.00 ft Side Slopel : 7.00 Ditch Slope: 0.0100 ft /ft Side Slope2 : 7.00 Contrib Bas: a2 Mannings n :0.0300 Dn Invert : 10.00 ft Dn W.S. Elev:0.0000 Num Steps : 10 Trib Area: 5.00 Ac. Design Flow : Depth • 0.43 ft Vel • Upstream W.S. Elev: 0.00 ft. 2.32 cfs 1.78 fps 10/24/92 HCWL Inc - Chelan TUKWILA STORM DRAINAGE ANALYSIS FUTURE CONDITIONS FOR THE 25YR - 24HR STORM EVENT PRECIPITATION EQUALS 3.35 INCHES page 2 REACH SUMMARY DITCH REACH ID No. bs2 Ditch Length:1300.00 ft Ditch Width: 0.00 ft Side Slopel : 7.00 Ditch Slope: 0.0014 ft /ft Side Slope2 : 7.00 Contrib Bas: a14 Mannings n :0.0300 Dn Invert : 12.09 ft Dn W.S. Elev:0.0000 Num Steps : 10 Trib Area: 7.00 Ac. Design Flow : Depth 0.69 ft Vel . Upstream W.S. Elev: 0.00 ft. 2.99 cfs 0.91 fps DITCH REACH ID No. c2 Ditch Length: 285.00 ft Ditch Width: 3.00 ft Side Slopel : 3.00 Ditch Slope: 0.0017 ft /ft Side Slope2 : 3.00 Contrib Bas: a5a Mannings n :0.0300 Dn Invert 14.64 ft Dn W.S. Elev :0.0000 Num Steps : 10 Trib Area: 8.30 Ac. Design Flow : Depth 0.59 ft Vel Upstream W.S. Elev: 0.00 ft. PIPE REACH From: To: Pipe Diameter: Pipe Length : Up invert • Collection Area: Design Flow • Pipe Capacity . Design Vel Pipe Full Vel PIPE REACH From: To: Pipe Diameter: Pipe Length : Up invert • Collection Area: Design Flow Pipe Capacity . Design Vel Pipe Full Vel . : • • ID No. c3 2.00 ft 25.00 ft 11.79 ft 11.50 Ac. 4.88 cfs 18.65 cfs 5.00 fps 5.94 fps ID No. d2 2.00 ft 490.00 ft 16.85 ft 6.90 Ac. 4.27 cfs 22.79 cfs 5.56 fps 7.25 fps n: 0.0100 s: 0.0040 down invert: 3.26 cfs 1.15 fps 11.69 ft Dsgn Depth: 0.70 ft Travel Time: 0.08 min n: 0.0120 s: 0.0086 down invert: Dsgn Depth: Travel Time: 12.64 ft 0.59 ft 1.47 min 10/24/92 HCWL Inc - Chelan TUKWILA STORM DRAINAGE ANALYSIS FUTURE CONDITIONS FOR THE 25YR - 24HR STORM EVENT PRECIPITATION EQUALS 3.35 INCHES page 3 PIPE REACH From: To: Pipe Diameter: Pipe Length : Up invert . Collection Area: Design Flow . Pipe Capacity . Design Vel Pipe Full Vel . REACH SUMMARY ID No. d3 2.00 ft 152.00 ft 13.03 ft 12.10 Ac. 7.61 cfs 30.93 cfs 8.15 fps 9.84 fps n: 0.0100 s: 0.0110 down invert: 11.36 ft Dsgn Depth: 0.68 ft Travel Time: 0.31 min DITCH REACH ID No. el Ditch Length: 130.00 ft Ditch Width: 6.00 ft Side Slopel : 0.01 Ditch Slope: 0.0004 ft /ft Side Slope2 : 0.01 Contrib Bas: Mannings n :0.0120 Dn Invert : 11.30 ft Dn W.S. Elev :0.0000 Num Steps : 10 Trib Area: 23.60 Ac. Design Flow : 12.23 cfs Depth 0.99 ft Vel 2.05 fps Upstream W.S. Elev: 0.00 ft. DITCH REACH ID No. e2 Ditch Length: 345.00 ft Ditch Width: 6.00 ft Side Slopel : 0.01 Ditch Slope: 0.0004 ft /ft Side Slope2 : 0.01 Contrib Bas: Mannings n :0.0120 Dn Invert 11.16 ft Dn W.S. Elev:0.0000 Num Steps : 10 Trib Area: 44.90 Ac. Design Flow : 21.14 cfs Depth : 1.44 ft Vel • 2.44 fps Upstream W.S. Elev: 0.00 ft. Network Beach rl HACK < -ARFA> < -DIA> LENGTH SLOPB < n > DSGI Q X PIPE Ndepth %Depth Vact Vfull C_Area ID (Ac) (ft) (ft) ft /ft (cfe) (ft) (fpe) (fpa) anl, . 5.00 82 15.80 750.00 0.0100 0.0300 2.32 Ditch 0.43 Ditch 1.78 a2 300.00 0.0010 0.0300 7.70 Ditch 0.58 Ditch 1.02 NP25 10/24/92 HCWL Inc - Chelan TUKWILA STORM DRAINAGE ANALYSIS FUTURE CONDITIONS FOR THE 25YR - 24HR STORM EVENT PRECIPITATION EQUALS 3.35 INCHES Page 4 REACH SUMMARY Network Reach r2 REACH < -AREA> < -DIA> LENGTH SLOPE < n > DSGN Q % PIPE Ndepth %Depth Vact Vfull Cjrea ID (Ac) (ft) (ft) ft /ft (cfs) (ft) (fpa) (fps) d2 6.90 2.00 490.00 0.0086 0.0120 4.27 18.75 0.59 29.33 5.56 7.25 a5b d3 12.10 2.00 152.00 0.0110 0.0100 7.61 24.60 0.68 33.79 8.15 9.84 alb Network Reach r3 REACH < -AREA> < -DIA> LENGTH SLOPE < n > DSGN Q % PIPE Ndepth %Depth Vact Vfull Cjrea ID (Ac) (ft) (ft) ft /ft (cfa) - (ft) (fps) (fpe) c2 8.30 285.00 0.0017 0.0300 3.26 Ditch 0.59 Ditch 1.15 a5a c3 11.50 2.00 25,00 0.0040 0.0100 4.88 26.15 0.70 34.90 5.00 5.94 a7a Network Reach r4 REACH < -AREA> < -DIA> ID (Ac) (ft) LENGTH SLOPE < n > DSGN Q % PIPE Ndepth %Depth Vact Vfull Circa (ft) ft /ft (cfa) (ft) (fps) (fpe) bat 7.00 Aetwork Reach r5 REACH < -AREA> < -DIA> ID (Ac) (ft) 1300.00 0.O0I4 0.0300 2.99 Ditch 0.69 Ditch 0.91 a14 LENGTH SLOPE < n > DSGN Q % PIPE Hdepth %Depth Vact Vfull Cjrea (ft) ft /ft (cfa) (ft) (fpa) (fps) BA1 8.34 2.00 Network Reach r6 REACH < -AREA> < -DIA> ID (Ac) (ft) 1070.00 0.0030 0.0120 3.95 29.35 0.74 37.12 3.72 4.28 LENGTH SLOPE < n > DSGN Q % PIPE Hdepth %Depth Vact Vfull Cjrea (ft) ft /ft (cfs) - - - --- (ft) (fps) (fpe) el 23.60 Network Reach r7 REACH < -AREA> < -DIA> ID (Ac) (ft) 130.00 0.0004 0.0120 12.23 Ditch 0,99 Ditch 2.05 LENGTH SLOPE < n > DSGN Q % PIPE Ndepth %Depth Vact Vfull Cjrea (ft) ft /ft (cfa) (ft) (fps) (fps) e2 44.90 345.00 0.0004 0.0120 21.14 Ditch 1.44 Ditch 2.44 10/24/52 HCWL Inc — Chelan TUKWILA STORM DRAINAGE ANALYSIS FUTURE CONDITIONS FOR THE 25YR — 24HR STORM EVENT PRECIPITATION EQUALS 3.35 INCHES page 5 REACH SUMMARY Hetrork Reach r8 REACH < -AREA> < -DIA> LENGTH SLOPE < n > DSGN Q % PIPE Ndepth %Depth Vact Vfnll Cjrea ID (Ac) (ft) (ft) ft /ft (cfe) (ft) (fps) (fpe) Hi 62.22 900.00 0,0013 0.0300 28.61 Ditch 1.15 Ditch 1.74 APPENDIX C HYDRAULIC MODEL OUTPUT TABULATIONS MODEL OUTPUT OF 100 YEAR STORM EVENT IN THE NELSON PL. BASIN WHILE SPRINGBROOK CREEK IS AT ELEVATION 13. This model run was developed to review the interactions of the future S.W. 16th St. Storm pipeline and outfall and the 18 cfs allowable storm discharge to the Boeing CSTC Site, all working against the most severe tail water conditions in Springbrook Creek. A 100 year storm is assumed to occur in the Nelson PI. Basin concurrently with a 100 year storm event in the East Side Green River Water Shed of Springbrook Creek. The Nelson Pl. basin and storm system must discharge into Springbrook Creek while the creek is in a storage mode and storm water is impounded behind the Black River Pump Station to an elevation of 13 feet. Further assumptions have included the complete build out of vacant properties in the Springbrook basin which impose a severe operating condition for the Nelson PI. storm water system. This modeling effort has identified only moderate flooding in the McLeod site, and even under this model's severe conditions, ponding under a 100 year storm will be less than elevation 16. The computer output elevations of 14 have been slightly increased to elevation 16 to account for special hydraulic losses not included in the Water Works Program. This model assumes modification of the S.W. 16th Storm Drain to develop low head loss manholes, by use of "T" Top manholes or future addition of improved channeling or manhole thru piping. 12/ 9/92 HCWL Inc - Chelan TUKWILA STORM DRAINAGE PEAK WATER SURFACE ELEVATIONS FOR 100 YR EVENT WHEN SPRINGBROOK CREEK IS AT 13 FEET ELEVATION page 1 BASIN ID: BA-10 SBUH METHODOLOGY TOTAL AREA RAINFALL TYPE....: PRECIPITATION - TIME INTERVAL TIME OF CONC BASIN SUMMARY NAME: 100 YR DEVELOPED 8.98 Acres TYPE1A 3.90 inches 10.00 min 11.49 min BASEFLOWS: 0.00 cfs PERVIOUS AREA AREA..: 2.42 Acres CN 90.00 IMPERVIOUS AREA ABSTRACTION COEFF: 0.20 AREA..: 6.56 Acres CN 98.00 TcReach - Sheet L: 260.00 n3:0.0110 p2yr: 1.95 s :0.0150 TcReach -- Channel L:1070.00 kc:42.00 x:0.0030 PEAK RATE: 6.57 cfs VOL: 2.57 Ac -ft TIME: 480 min BASIN ID: NP -10 SBUH METHODOLOGY TOTAL AREA • RAINFALL TYPE PRECIPITATION TIME INTERVAL TIME OF CONC ABSTRACTION COEFF: NAME: 100 YR DEVELOPED 10.80 Acres TYPE1A 3.90 inches 10.00 min 19.25 min 0.20 BASEFLOWS: 0.00 cfs PERVIOUS AREA AREA..: 4.47 Acres CN • 90.00 IMPERVIOUS AREA AREA..: 6.33 Acres CN • 98.00 TcReach - Sheet L: 300.00 ns:0.0110 p2yr: 1.95 3:0.0150 TcReach - Channel L:1200.00 kc:42.00 s :0.0010 PEAK RATE: 6.92 cfs VOL: 2.99 Ac -ft TIME: 480 min BASIN ID: SP -10 SBUH METHODOLOGY TOTAL AREA • RAINFALL TYPE PRECIPITATION TIME INTERVAL TIME OF CONC ABSTRACTION COEFF: NAME: 100 YR DEVELOPED 8.34 Acres TYPE1A 3.90 inches 10.00 min 18.51 min 0.20 BASEFLOWS: 0.00 cfs PERVIOUS AREA AREA..: 3.18 Acres CN • 80.30 IMPERVIOUS AREA AREA..: 5.16 Acres CN • 98.00 TcReach - Sheet L: 300.00 ns:0.0110 p2yr: 1.95 s:0.0150 TcReach - Channel L: 800.00 kc:17.00 s:0.0030 PEAK RATE: 4.77 cfs VOL: 2.10 Ac -ft TIME: 480 min 12/ 9/92 HCWL Inc - Chelan TUKWILA STORM DRAINAGE PEAK WATER SURFACE ELEVATIONS FOR 100 YR EVENT WHEN SPRINGBROOK CREEK IS AT 13 FEET ELEVATION page 2 BASIN ID: al -10 SBUH METHODOLOGY TOTAL AREA • RAINFALL TYPE PRECIPITATION TIME INTERVAL TIME OF CONC ABSTRACTION COEFF: BASIN SUMMARY NAME: OLD A14 7.00 Acres TYPE1A 3.90 inches 10.00 min 39.86 min 0.20 - 100 YR DEVELOPED BASEFLOWS: 0.00 cfs PERVIOUS AREA AREA..: 1.05 Acres CN • 92.00 IMPERVIOUS AREA AREA..: 5.95 Acres CN • 98.00 TcReach -- Sheet L: 200.00 ns:0.1500 p2yr: 1.95 x:0.0150 TcReach - Channel L: 700.00 kc:17.00 x:0.0020 PEAK RATE: 3.87 cfs VOL: 2.08 Ac -ft TIME: 490 min BASIN ID: a2 -10 SBUH METHODOLOGY TOTAL AREA • RAINFALL TYPE PRECIPITATION TIME INTERVAL TIME OF CONC • ABSTRACTION COEFF: NAME: OLD a2 5.00 Acres TYPE1A 3.90 inches 10.00 min 36.90 min 0.20 - 100 YR DEVELOPED BASEFLOWS: 0.00 cfs PERVIOUS AREA AREA..: 0.75 Acres • CN • 92.00 IMPERVIOUS AREA AREA..: 4.25 Acres CN 98.00 TcReach - Sheet L: 500.00 ns:0.1000 p2yr: 1.95 s:0.0150 PEAK RATE: 2.82 cfs VOL: 1.49 Ac -ft TIME: 490 min BASIN ID: a5 -10 SBUH METHODOLOGY TOTAL AREA • RAINFALL TYPE PRECIPITATION TIME INTERVAL TIME OF CONC ABSTRACTION COEFF: NAME: OLD a5a 8.30 Acres TYPE1A 3.90 inches 10.00 min 62.28 min 0.20 - 100 YR DEVELOPED BASEFLOWS: 0.00 cfs PERVIOUS AREA AREA..: 1.25 Acres CN • 92.00 IMPERVIOUS AREA AREA..: 7.05 Acres CN 98.00 TcReach - Sheet L: 300.00 ns:0.1500 p2yr: 1.95 e :0.0100 TcReach - Shallow L: 300.00 ks:13.00 3:0.0100 TcReach - Channel L: 780.00 kc:17.00 3:0.0017 PEAK RATE: 3.93 cfs VOL: 2.47 Ac-ft TIME: 490 min 12/ 9/92 HCWL Inc - Chelan TUKWILA STORM DRAINAGE PEAK WATER SURFACE ELEVATIONS FOR 100 YR EVENT WHEN SPRINGBROOK CREEK IS AT 13 FEET ELEVATION page 3 BASIN ID: a6 -10 SBUH METHODOLOGY TOTAL AREA • RAINFALL TYPE PRECIPITATION TIME INTERVAL TIME OF CONC ABSTRACTION COEFF: BASIN SUMMARY NAME: OLD a5b 6.90 Acres TYPE1A 3.90 inches 10.00 min 15.07 min 0.20 - 100 YR DEVELOPED BASEFLOWS: 0.00 cfs PERVIOUS AREA AREA..: 1.03 Acres CN 92.00 IMPERVIOUS AREA AREA..: 5.87 Acres CN • 98.00 TcReach - Sheet L: 500.00 ns:0.0110 p2yr: 1.95 s:0.0020 TcReach - Channel L: 220.00 kc:42.00 s :0.0086 PEAK RATE: 5.00 cfs VOL: 2.05 Ac -ft TIME: 480 min BASIN ID: a7 -10 SBUH METHODOLOGY TOTAL AREA RAINFALL TYPE PRECIPITATION TIME INTERVAL TIME OF CONC ABSTRACTION COEFF: NAME: OLD a7a 3.20 Acres TYPE1A 3.90 inches 10.00 min 10.38 min 0.20 - 100 YR DEVELOPED BASEFLOWS: 0.00 cfs PERVIOUS AREA AREA..: 0.48 Acres CN • 92.00 IMPERVIOUS AREA AREA..: 2.72 Acres CN 98.00 TcReach - Sheet L: 340.00 ns:0.0110 p2yr: 1.95 6:0.0020 PEAK RATE: 2.45 cfs VOL: 0.95 Ac -ft TIME: 480 min BASIN ID: a8 -10 SBUH METHODOLOGY TOTAL AREA - RAINFALL TYPE PRECIPITATION TIME INTERVAL TIME OF CONC ABSTRACTION COEFF: NAME: OLD a7b 5.20 Acres TYPE1A 3.90 inches 10.00 min 11.82 min 0.20 - 100 YR DEVELOPED BASEFLOWS: 0.00 cis PERVIOUS AREA AREA..: 0.78 Acres CN • 92.00 IMPERVIOUS AREA AREA..: 4.42 Acres CN • 98.00 TcReach - Sheet L: 400.00 ns:0.0110 p2yr; 1.95 s:0.0020 PEAK RATE: 3.92 cfs VOL: 1.55 Ac -ft TIME: 480 min 12/ 9/92 HCWL Inc - Chelan TUKWILA STORM DRAINAGE PEAK WATER SURFACE ELEVATIONS FOR 100 YR EVENT WHEN SPRINGBROOK CREEK IS AT 13 FEET ELEVATION pace 4 BASIN ID: a9 -10 SBUH METHODOLOGY TOTAL AREA • RAINFALL TYPE PRECIPITATION TIME INTERVAL TIME OF CONC ABSTRACTION COEFF: • TcReach - Sheet TcReach - Channel PEAK RATE: 8.17 BASIN SUMMARY NAME: OLD a9 14.30 Acres TYPE1A 3.90 inches 10.00 min 35.29 min 0.20 L: 200.00 L:1300.00 cfs VOL: - 100 YR DEVELOPED BASEFLOWS: 0.00 cfs PERVIOUS AREA AREA..: 2.15 Acres CN • 92.00 IMPERVIOUS AREA AREA..: 12.15 Acres CN • 98.00 ns:0.0110 p2yr: 1.95 s :0.0020 kc:17.00 s:0.0020 4.25 Ac -ft TIME: 490 min 12/ 9/92 HCWL Inc - Chelan TUKWILA STORM DRAINAGE PEAK WATER SURFACE ELEVATIONS FOR 100 YR EVENT WHEN SPRINGBROOK CREEK IS AT 13 FEET ELEVATION page 5 HYDROGRAPH SUMMARY PEAK TIME VOLUME HYD RUNOFF OF OF Contrib NUM RATE PEAK HYDRO Area cfs min. cf -AcFt Acres 1 8.923 480 156760 cf 12.10 2 3.923 480 67363 cf 5.20 3 5.783 480 148959 cf 11.50 4 2.455 480 41454 cf 3.20 5 8.174 490 185236 cf 14.30 6 3.536 510 90681 cf 7.00 7 4.773 480 91542 of 8.34 8 6.569 480 112094 cf 8.98 9 6.920 480 130052 cf 10.80 10 2.684 510 64767 cf 5.00 11 14.464 480 305717 cf 23.60 12 11.422 490 275917 cf 21.30 13 24.937 490 581633 cf 44.90 14 11.342 480 203636 of 17.32 15 33.910 500 785297 cf 62.22 16 39.164 500 915349 cf 73.02 17 41.760 500 980116 of 78.02 18 19.174 530 602141 of 0.00 19 37.174 530 980116 of 78.02 20 18.000 510 377975 cf 0.00 12/ 9/92 HCWL Inc - Chelan TUKWILA STORM DRAINAGE PEAK WATER SURFACE ELEVATIONS FOR 100 YR EVENT WHEN SPRINGBROOK CREEK IS AT 13 FEET ELEVATION page 6 STORAGE STRUCTURE LIST STORAGE LIST ID No. S -1 Description: TUKWILA STORAGE 12/ 9/92 HCWL Inc - Chelan TUKWILA STORM DRAINAGE PEAK WATER SURFACE ELEVATIONS FOR 100 YR EVENT WHEN SPRINGBROOK CREEK IS AT 13 FEET ELEVATION page 7 STAGE STORAGE TABLE CUSTOM STORAGE ID No. 5-1 Description: TUKWILA STORAGE STAGE <----STORAGE----> STAGE <----STORAGE----> STAGE <----STORAGE----> STAGE <----STORAGE----> (ft) ---cf--- --Ac-ft- (ft) ---cf--- --Ac-Ft- (ft) ---cf--- --Ac-Ft- (ft) ---cf--- --Ac-Ft- 13.00 0.0000 0.0000 14.30 59480 1.3655 15.60 187980 4.3154 16.90 308090 7,0728 13.10 2660 0.0611 14.40 70440 1.6171 15.70 196610 4.5135 17.00 317600 7.2911 13.20 5320 0.1221 14.50 81400 1.8687 15.80 205240 4.7117 17.10 322390 7.4011 13.30 7980 0.1832 14.60 92360 2.1203 15.90 213810 4.9098 17.20 327180 7.5110 13.40 10640 0.2443 14.70 103320 2.3719 16.00 222500 5.1079 17.30 331970 7.6210 13.50 13300 0.3053 14.80 114280 2.6235 16.10 232010 5.3262 17.40 336760 7.7309 13.60 15960 0.3664 14.90 125240 2.8751 16.20 241520 5.5445 17.50 341550 7.8409 13.70 18620 0.4275 15.00 136200 3.1267 16.30 251030 5.7629 17.60 346340 7.9509 13.80 21280 0.4885 15.10 144830 3.3248 16.40 260540 5.9812 17.70 351130 8.0608 13.90 23940 0.5496 15.20 153460 3.5230 16.50 270050 6.1995 17.80 355920 8.1708 14.00 26600 0.6107 15.30 162090 3.7211 16.60 279560 6.4178 17.90 360710 8.2808 14.10 37560 0.8623 15.40 170720 3.9192 16.70 289070 8.6361 18.00 365500 8.3907 14.20 48520 1.1139 15.50 179350 4.1173 16.80 298580 6.8545 12/ 9/92 HCWL Inc - Chelan TUKWILA STORM DRAINAGE PEAK WATER SURFACE ELEVATIONS FOR 100 YR EVENT WHEN SPRINGBROOK CREEK IS AT 13 FEET ELEVATION page 8 DISCHARGE STRUCTURE LIST COMBINATION DISCHARGE ID No C -1 Description: COMBINED TUKWILA DRAINS Structure: D -1 Structure: Structure: D -2 Structure: Structure: DISCHARGE LIST ID No. D -1 Description: TUKWILA 48 in DRAIN DISCHARGE LIST ID No. D -2 Description: TUKWILA 24 in DRAIN 14.30 39.429 15.70 49.111 17.10 56.500 18.50 60.700 12/ 9/92 HCWL Inc - Chelan TUKWILA STORM DRAINAGE PEAK WATER SURFACE ELEVATIONS FOR 100 YR EVENT WHEN SPRINGBROOK CREEK IS AT 13 FEET ELEVATION page 10 STAGE DISCHARGE TABLE DISCHARGE LIST ID No. D -1 Description: TUKWILA 48 in DRAIN STAGS < -- DISCHARGE - - -> STAGE <-- DISCHARGE - - -> STAGE 4 -- DISCHARGE - - -> STAGE <-- DISCHARGE - - -> (ft) - - -cfa (ft) - - -cfe (ft) - - -cfe (ft) - - -cf8 13.00 0.0000 13.10 3.3333 13.20 6.6667 13.30 10.000 13.40 11.250 13.50 12.500 13.60 13.750 13.70 15.000 13.80 16.250 13.90 17.500 14.00 18.750 14.10 20.000 14.20 20.714 14.30 21.429 14.40 22.143 14.50 22.857 14.60 23.571 14.70 24.286 14.80 25.000 14.90 25.714 15.00 28.429 15.10 27.143 15.20 21.857 15.30 28.571 15.40 29.286 15.50 30.000 15.60 30.556 15.70 31.111 15.80 31.667 15.90 32.222 16.00 32.778 16.10 33.333 16.20 33.889 16.30 34.444 16.40 35.000 16.50 35.500 16.60 36.000 16.70 36.500 16.80 37.000 16.90 37.500 17.00 38.000 17.10 38.500 17.20 39.000 17.30 39.500 17.40 40.000 17.50 40.245 17.60 40.491 17.70 40.738 17.80 40.982 17.90 41.227 18.00 41.473 18.10 41.718 18.20 41.964 18.30 42.209 18.40 42.455 18.50 42.700 12/ 9/92 HCWL Inc - Chelan TUKWILA STORM DRAINAGE PEAK WATER SURFACE ELEVATIONS FOR 100 YR EVENT WHEN SPRINGBROOK CREEK IS AT 13 FEET ELEVATION page 11 STAGE DISCHARGE TABLE DISCHARGE LIST ID No. D -2 Description: TUKWILA 24 in DRAIN STAGE <-- DISCHARGH - - -> STAG6 <-- D1SCHARGE - - -> STAGE <-- DISCHARGE - --> STAGE <-- DISCHARGE - - -> (ft) -cis (ft) - - -cfs (ft) - - -cfe (ft) - --cfs 13.00 0.0000 13.10 1.8000 13.20 3.6000 13.30 5.4000 13.40 7.2000 13.50 9.0000 13.60 10.800 13.70 12.600 13.80 14.400 13.90 16.200 14.00 18.000 14.10 18,000 14.20 18.000 14.30 18.000 14.40 18.000 14.50 18.000 14.60 18.000 14.70 18.000 14.80 18.000 14.90 18.000 15.00 18.000 15.10 18.000 15.20 18.000 15.30 18.000 15.40 18.000 15.50 18.000 15.60 18.000 15.70 18.000 15.80 18.000 15.90 18.000 16.00 18,000 16.10 18,000 16.20 18.000 16.30 18.000 16.40 18.000 16.50 18.000 16.60 18.000 16.70 18.000 16.80 18.000 16.90 18.000 17.00 18.000 17.10 18.000 17.20 18.000 17.30 18.000 17.40 18.000 17.50 18.000 17.60 18.000 17.70 18.000 17.80 18.000 17.90 18.000 18.00 18.000 18.10 18.000 18.20 18.000 18.30 18.000 18.40 18.000 18.50 18.000 _---_----_-._- 12/ 9/92 HCWL Inc — Chelan TUKWILA STORM DRAINAGE PEAK WATER SURFACE ELEVATIONS FOR 100 YR EVENT WHEN SPRINGBROOK CREEK IS AT 13 FEET ELEVATION page 12 LEVEL POOL TABLE SUMMARY HATCH INFLOW -STO- -DIS- <-PEAK-> STORAGE < DESCRIPTION > (cfs) (cfs) --id- --id- <-STAGE> id VOL (cf) 100 YR FLOWS ROUTED 0.00 41.76 S-1 C-1 14.03 19 30321.60 12/ 9/92 HCWL Inc - Chelan TUKWILA STORM DRAINAGE PEAK WATER SURFACE ELEVATIONS FOR 100 YR EVENT WHEN SPRINGBROOK CREEK IS AT 13 FEET ELEVATION page 13 REACH SUMMARY DITCH REACH ID No. Ni Ditch Length: 900.00 ft Ditch Width: 12.00 ft Side Slopel : 2.00 Ditch Slope: 0.0013 ft /ft Side Slope2 : 2.00 Contrib Bas: Mannings n :0.0300 Dn Invert : 10.00 ft Dn W.S. Elev:0.0000 Num Steps : 10 Trib Area: 62.22 Ac. Design Flow : 33.91 cfs Depth . 1.27 ft Vel 1.84 fps Upstream W.S. Elev: 0.00 ft. DITCH REACH ID No. N2 Ditch Length: 300.00 ft Ditch Width: 12.00 ft Side Slopel : 2.00 Ditch Slope: 0.0010 ft /ft Side Slope2 : 2.00 Contrib Bas: Mannings n :0.0300 Dn Invert 9.70 ft Dn W.S. Elev :0.0000 Num Steps : 10 Trib Area: 5.00 Ac. Design Flow : Depth 0.31 ft Vel Upstream W.S. Elev: 0.00 ft. 2.68 cfs 0.69 fps DITCH REACH ID No. and Ditch Length: 750.00 ft Ditch Width: 0.00 ft Side Slopel : 7.00 Ditch Slope: 0.0100 ft /ft Side Slope2 : 7.00 Contrib Bas: Mannings n :0.0300 Dn Invert 10.00 ft Dn W.S. Elev:0.0000 Num Steps : 10 Trib Area: 5.00 Ac. Design Flow : 2.74 cfs Depth 0.46 ft Vel 1.85 fps Upstream W.S. Elev: 0.00 ft. PIPE REACH From: To: Pipe Diameter: Pipe Length . Up invert Collection Area: Design Flow Pipe Capacity . Design Vel Pipe Full Vel • ID No. bal -p 2.00 ft 1070.00 ft 14.37 ft 8.34 Ac. 4.77 cfs 13.46 cfs 3.92 fps 4.28 fps n: 0.0120 s: 0.0030 down invert: 11.16 ft Dsgn Depth: 0.82 ft Travel Time: 4.55 min 12/ 9/92 HCWL Inc - Chelan TUKWILA STORM DRAINAGE PEAK WATER SURFACE ELEVATIONS FOR 100 YR EVENT WHEN SPRINGBROOK CREEK IS AT 13 FEET ELEVATION page 14 REACH SUMMARY DITCH REACH ID No. bs2 Ditch Length:1300.00 ft Ditch Width: 0.00 ft Side S1ope1 : 7.00 Ditch Slope: 0.0014 ft /ft Side Slope2 : 7.00 Contrib Has: Mannings n :0.0300 Dn Invert 12.09 ft Dn W.S. Elev :0.0000 Num Steps : 10 Trib Area: 7.00 Ac. Design Flow : 3.54 cfs Depth • 0.73 ft Vel 0.94 fps Upstream W.S. Elev: 0.00 ft. DITCH REACH ID No. 02 Ditch Length: 285.00 ft Ditch Width: 3.00 ft Side Slopel : 3.00 Ditch Slope: 0.0017 ft /ft Side Slope2 : 3.00 Contrib Bas: Mannings n :0.0300 Dn Invert 14.64 ft Dn W.S. Elev:0.0000 Num Steps : 10 Trib Area: 8.30 Ac. Design Flow : 3.84 cfs Depth : 0.65 ft Vel 1.20 fps Upstream W.S. Elev: 0.00 £t. PIPE REACH From: To: Pipe Diameter: Pipe Length . Up invert Collection Area: Design Flow . Pipe Capacity . Design Vel Pipe Full Vel . PIPE REACH From: To: Pipe Diameter: Pipe Length . Up invert Collection Area: Design Flow Pipe Capacity : Design Vel Pipe Full Vel . • • • • ID No. c3 2.00 ft 25.00 ft 11.79 ft 11.50 Ac. 5.78 cfs 18.65 cfs 5.24 fps 5.94 fps ID No. d2 2.00 ft 490.00 ft 16.85 ft 6.90 Ac. 5.00 cfs 22.79 cfs 5.81 fps 7.25 fps n: 0.0100 s: 0.0040 down invert: 11.69 ft Dagn Depth: 0.76 ft Travel Time: 0.08 min n: 0.0120 s: 0.0086 down invert: 12.64 ft Dsgn Depth: 0.64 ft Travel Time: 1.40 min 12/ 9/92 HCWL Inc - Chelan TUKWILA STORM DRAINAGE PEAK WATER SURFACE ELEVATIONS FOR 100 YR EVENT WHEN SPRINGBROOK CREEK IS AT 13 FEET ELEVATION page 15 PIPE REACH From: To: Pipe Diameter: Pipe Length . Up invert • REACH SUMMARY ID No. d3 2.00 ft 152.00 ft 13.03 ft n: 0.0100 s: 0.0110 down invert: 11.36 ft Collection Area: 12.10 Ac. Design Flow 8.92 efs Dsgn Depth: 0.74 ft Pipe Capacity : 30.93 cfs Design Vel 8.51 fps Travel Time: 0.30 min Pipe Full Vel 9.84 fps DITCH REACH ID No. el Ditch Length: 130.00 ft Ditch Width: 4.67 ft Side Slopel : 0.01 Ditch Slope: 0.0004 ft /ft Side Slope2 : 0.01 Contrib Bas: Mannings n :0.0120 Dn Invert 11.30 ft Dn W.S. Elev:0.0000 Num Steps : 10 Trib Area: 23.60 Ac. Design Flow : 14.46 cfs Depth 1.37 ft Vel 2.26 fps Upstream W.S. Elev: 0.00 ft. DITCH REACH ID No. e2 Ditch Length: 345.00 ft Ditch Width: 4.67 ft Side Slopel : 0.01 Ditch Slope: 0.0004 ft /ft Side Slope2 : 0.01 Contrib Bas: Mannings n :0.0120 Dn Invert 11.16 ft Dn W.S. Elev:0.0000 Num Steps : 10 Trib Area: 44.90 Ac. Design Flow : 24.94 cfs Depth • 2.02 ft Vel 2.63 fps Upstream W.S. Elev: 0.00 ft. Network Reach rl REACH < -ARIA> < -DIA> LENGTH SLOPE < n > DSGN Q % PIPE Ndepth XDepth Vact Vfull Cjrea ID (Ac) (ft) (ft) ft /ft (cfs) (ft) (fpa) (fps) and 5.00 N2 5.00 750.00 0.0100 0.0300 2.74 Ditch 0.46 Ditch 1.85 300.00 0.0010 0.0300 2.68 Ditch 0.31 Ditch 0.69 12/ 9/92 HCWL Inc - Chelan TUKWILA STORM DRAINAGE PEAK WATER SURFACE ELEVATIONS FOR 100 YR EVENT WHEN SPRINGBROOK CREEK IS AT 13 FEET ELEVATION page 16 REACH SUMMARY Network Reach r2 REACH < -AREA> < -DIA> LENGTH SLOPE < n > DSGH Q % PIPE Ndepth %Depth Vact Vfull C_Area ID (Ac) (ft) (ft) ft /ft (cfs) (ft) (fps) (fps) c2 8.30 285.00 0.0017 0.0300 3,84 Ditch 0.65 Ditch 1.20 c3 11,50 2.00 25,00 0.0040 0.0100 5.78 31.01 0.76 38.23 5.24 5.94 0-10 Network Reach r4 REACH < -AREA> < -DIA> LENGTH SLOPE < n > DSGH Q % PIPE Ndepth %Depth Vact Vfull C_Area ID (Ac) (ft) (ft) ft /ft (cfs) (ft) (fps) (fps) el 23.60 130,00 0.0004 0,0120 14.46 Ditch 1.37 Ditch 2.26 Network Reach r5 REACH < -AREA> < -DIA> LENGTH SLOPE < o > DSGH Q % PIPE Ndepth %Depth Vact Vfull C_Area ID (Ac) (ft) (ft) ft /ft (cfs) (ft) (fps) (fps) el 44.90 345.00 0.0004 0.0120 24.94 Ditch 2.02 Ditch 2.63 Network Reach r6 REACH < -AREA> < -DIA> LENGTH SLOPE < n > DSGN Q % PIPE Ndepth %Depth Vact Vfull C_Area ID (Ac) (ft) (ft) ft /ft (cfs) (ft) (fps) (fpa) bs2 7.00 Network Reach r7 REACH < -AREA> < -DIA> ID (Ac) (ft) 1300.00 0.0014 0.0300 3.54 Ditch 0.73 Ditch 0.94 LENGTH SLOPE < n > DSGN Q % PIPE Ndepth %Depth Vact Vfull C_Area (ft) ft /ft (cfs) (ft) (fpe) (fpe) bal -p 8.34 2.00 Network Reach r8 REACH < -AREA> < -DIA> ID (Ac) (ft) 1070.00 0.0030 0.0120 4.77 35.46 0.82 41.13 3.92 4.28 LENGTH SLOPE < n > DSGN Q % PIPE Ndepth %Depth Vact Vfull C_Area (ft) ft /ft (cfs) (ft) (fpe) (fps) N1 62.22 900.00 0.0013 0.0300 33.91 Ditch 1.27 Ditch 1.84 12/ 9/92 HCWL In — Chelan TUKWILA STORM DRAINAGE PEAK WATER SURFACE ELEVATIONS FOR 100 YR EVENT WHEN SPRINGBROOK CREEK IS AT 13 FEET ELEVATION page 17 Network Reach r9 REACH < -AREA> < -DIA> ID (Ac) (ft) REACH SUMMARY LENGTH SLOPE < n > DSGN Q % PIPE Ndepth %Depth Vact Vfull Clrea (ft) ft /ft (cfa) (ft) (fps) (fps) d2 6.90 2.00 d3 12.10 2.00 490.00 0,0086 0.0120 5.00 21.94 0.64 31.82 5.81 7.25 152.00 0.0110 0.0100 8.92 28.85 0.74 36.78 8.51 9.84 a8 -10 : APPENDIX D SVERDRUP DESIGN OF THE SW 16TH STREET STORM DRAIN \rp92 \fukwila.doc .. nu CATCH flU. EITTC8 . ., • , • ." , , . uNE• ••• / • • • • 2r • DIP . • , 01 10 - 7 •/,• • •••••;;• ••• 8 Inn 3 - 9r ' - ., , . 88.448 •• 34�1T662 •••• 4472480 TACIT • C22130 CONTRACT .• • • :'• ". • Y' • . • . ' , • • / . . , •••• 0: • • ...• • . ,i1 . ......-..-"- ........- T . ...-• ,... . \ ,..• . . • .....---A.-:- .• • ....-- ...- - • , -=3"--\•. b.'>-• . ._--:- 2.3. NIDE STORN ORAA4ACE CASEMENT • ID/ 16 - 1 INLET STRUCTURE SPEW/ ihm 10.0 TO 12.3 OE OUT 9.33 873466 NoT (32173 CONTRACT FUTURE KIRK BY OTHERS INCLUDES ALL NOR% WEST Elf U4 DCEPT tr SD • REuchE AHD.," „ -0(330/34 0/40 REPLACC /- Rr-SET .3 ••• tr - Fxj. 1 so TO PACNIDC LOAM 'lc FOR Aff SD- \ at r r iJ • r. 25 NW 16 - 6 •*.I',./.....• ala ICO -I. :a- 77. X CUT . 9.02 .• • • • . N72463 m0T • .• ES2152 CONTRACT *. , h.:. . • ••• .., sL.,. iE 9.27 t"----4.-al TO WAX 1170XXOUT . .J• FOR F1.8141 sr SD. , • t.• .../ ", r. .4"./1... :1,, .- -,17?..ti:;.• ,.. WNW 411' SO 1040E303MT ilr SO TO ENTER Ian ..... • a ODD( 10 i BOTTOM 810.0 L �8 5 • • 23.0 if 0 An' FUTURE CRAM NOT IN CONTRACT 425 if AuCER rz• CAS•C IAN *ALI. NOW= 1.123. 220.3 if AS 50 • 0.72 NOT IN CONTRACT CRAOE. F11.1 10* 'DIA AROUND WI ?.1g o 10:1 SLOPE - YIP REV* AS/Noe —‘•• rrPC 3 - 401 • 0/16-4 My IRS 7 70 10' 0 cO• was/spzr=m+. - 6.60 SCALE MCI IC OUT-48 - 853 1.72500 .•• ,- PLAN E 32.155 \ LONSICRES DRIVE PROPOSED GRAM . -1:( /SPIT ROAD I \ RENOVE REPLACE UNDER 444- SD 3633 LT Of 50 • 0.16 PROFILE SCALV l'.20 mORL 1..0 VERT. ICEY PLAN NAL DOW PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION I. • REVIEW 95 X F MATCHLINE CITY OF RENTON o ----- CSTC SITE DEVELOPMENT S.W. 16th STREET IMPROVEMENTS ar STORY WEST OF S.W. 16th STREET I ISSJI ION 814 Wb JOT. 1 0302.03 •••••71.E.e. 02.3882 1 we Immm twowilo rum 0.844. A Twos-- ••••3 motto al••• Emma In _l ann 0.001. • 1-• 25.03-2C90 •••■• =IMO nnon 000/03.30.92 • • of 1e -5 UN 1WC 3 -96 Rod . 17.15. • 1E W . 6.17 C OUT . 6.12 5TA 17.95.26 CO. RT Oro • • 19 +00 20 +Q0..1';:L .- 1 bth CWP h N ;'RESTORE ASPHALT • sy 20 15 PLAN Kona GRADE 10/ 16 —A MR TYPE 3 -96 RW.18.65 1E w .7.62 1E OUT . 7.77 STA 21+00 5.0• RT g Q 17450 363.5 t! 46 SD • 0.1* ar \- T365nHQ CRAOE ((v— ESTONTU2 W90ER MATER TABLE • Y�Y 18+00 19 +00 • 302.2 11 Of 50 • 0.1* 20+00 PROFILE SCALE:,-.20. HORZ. 1•.S' VERT. )1 . P1 AN 'CAL 110[ PREL M NARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION• REV1EEW� 995 % N�•N��MM��� C Y Y 21 +00 296.6 tf M' • 0.18 RCP so 20' 10• 0 20• AO' 20 15 z = 10 U Q• 5 0 SCALE • FEET • CITY OF RENTON 0[P•14 TY[NY OI •U•L.AC WORK. CSTC SITE DEVELOPMENT S.W. 16th S REETT +I aPRO IMPROVEMENTS W 0,6.6 MOOR ma 02.10.93 11....• ""Ca" �•Y•/S w • ( ( 20 15 z 10 5 0 • • • ROI/ • •4+1 .•. • ______ 13NP - - • , -------------- . 22+00 • r SO r.a!!■ 7.• it so =7. 25-c-cra S•: -1THSTREcT ,, ---1111111111111111161111,_3 UR 714E 3-ar 16/6 IN 747 IC OUT + 142 STA 24+00 Ll' r PROFILE GRADE PLAN : . g --------- — 20' ur 0 ESTRIATED WIRER - WARR TOLL —\ el GRADE —1 22+00 23+00 796.6 1 - 4e SD • OAS RCP 25+00 PROFILE SCALE: 1.20 :HORZ. 1...5' VERT. 4911.6 LP - 48" 50 • 0.19 RCP KEY PLAN SOIL WWI 26+00 20 20 15 10 5 27+00 0 r74117.17,1771 11 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION . • N REVIEW 95 % trIPO 0>i .D.N.00a4o1 Of OLNON _if 4 rtsur fOR NWT *MEV f 0.0 SC1.L FM CITY OF RENTON OCOmorf mew of Puf..JC MORNS CSTC SITE DEVELOPMENT S.W. 16th STREET IMPROVEMENTS or STORM STA 21+50 70 27+00 sm...11.E.O. -- 02.2012 1.4 •44•19.177997 0 R.P. wawa win) 030161 SEIM ON 40•1•■•■ se ------ INIM 11,1 IA AICIILINE S1A 27900 OM+ OHP IPSO ^ * DTP' SITE CODUUNICAt10N5 ARO ELECTRICAL 01K:IBANKS — BY OTHERS COORDINATE CONSTRUCTION WITH OTHER CONTRACTOR 25 CONTRACTOR TO DPOSE AND DETERMINE ELEVATION OF tY w AND 4' CAT STA 26 +90 c PRIOR TO ROADWAY CRANK OR UTIUTY INSTALLATION. ARO REPORT FWO9IDS TO ENGINEER L. 16 -2. MR TYPE 3-96 Rim - 1$69 1E W . JE 0E OUT 6.02 STA 29.00 10 00 S.W. 16th 3STREET • .— ----- - -...- - -- ..shoo 8 0 • • ■ I OO 20• '0• 0 20• A0• _ COIF _ DNF .,. :_ SCALE w (LET 1 1 1 r • a r % (% I - c j/ . —'I UTILITY TUNNEL BY OTHERS COORDMATE 1 • CONSTRUCTION WITH OTHER 1 CONTRACTOR CONTRACTOR SINCE VERIEY DEPTH OF IY w AND 4' CAS PRIOR TO NSTAEUND 10' AND S 00. ADNSTOEHT OF SLOPE TAY BE REQUIRED • PLAN W u ,s 5 o 27 +00 28 +00 419.6 U' at 50.0.1; wr 29 +00 I ' 30+00 ,,rnm,,ca._ PO-TETHELENE FOAM BLOCKING URITY TUNNEL. 419.6 LF AC SO • 0 T 31+00 MATCHLINE 25 20 I5 32 +00 0 RCP • • PROFILE SCALE: I• -20• P10RZ. I' -0. VENT. RCP PRELIMINARY ~; 6 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 1 REVIEW 95 z' KFY PUN CITY OF RENTON OLSAwYYCNT or •UeUC w0005 I CSTC SITE DEVELOPMENT S.W.16t qMSTREET IMPROVEMENTS DPRo VE 0s1R 000 WOO *CAI- 0c 01 A>.wR.EB. • wn 02.10.92 1 'ALA P"w ISlOOYL sr.. KAY mm caw,' /ORD MUM • rwl ww YPIMOIM \ • „TLL ILDEFLIDI . • vaLVE 1 • • / • • 11-1/4 BENO—/ L./ 20 15 tJ 10 1' 5 0 a 2 • ROW --ftELOVE 03 PLUG PIPE • 11 '1 • .1 • it ; ; g . 5 •,,, . , ; /3090 I ".1 / • •37900 • 4/ PLAN i; s I CONTRACTCO TO EXPOSE TOL aW 50. OETEMPRE ElEvAllCIN ARO LOCATICK 4*1 REPORT MON= TO E/GONIFL. BEFORE 00110 ANY SOT UTLITY 32+00 33+00 •198 Ll — alf SO • 0.12 RCP PROFILE 7 0 . _ 4 . t. .,.. 35+00 , i ._.,.....„. 1 3 7.00 S.W. 16TH STREET '.10 ,..._ — _ . s%•., ,.e...0 a................y....... - . ..- -i f :::::. - - ----J..- '-o *-)1 121 1 t 38+00 . . S.CCNC 5n9f. *001 STREET ' —7— — 000(-1 EST1WTED TARTER WATER TAELL—\ \ Ct .r so • o.sz 34+00 PROFILE • SCALE: l.20Z • • 1.L.S• SPIIING/IRCOK, \ CREM 7 / e 36+00 20 15 10 5 0 r"PRELIMINARY'"1 ENOT FOR CONSTRUCTION B REVIEW 95 % 1 N 20 10' 0 70' •Cr SCaLE • FEET ITY RAN SCAM leSME CITY OF RENTON OCIeWleIVIE PR Or •UIIILIC WO.*. CSTC SITE DEVELOPMENT S.W. 16th SI tti IMPROVEMENTS 4 STORN STA 32+00 TO 36.40.04 SUM ,Oel grAree as es el /Ogle, beeeb 021092 I..... !WM". O.R.N. : 1 am Wn1:17 '17 29.1.14-2C11. DR4/04 01.92 El EVATION INLET # 16 -9 INSTALLATION DETAIL tau: ra,K T SD /CASINO DETAIL D 24- nn WRT PROFILE uw }16 -7 TO Mr }16 -• SCALD v 1. -5' w 1' -20* ELEVATION Lo ACING EAST to—c 2—e' 24 CULVERT OVERFLOW WIER WALL 1la No1E N F1 NOT IN CONTRACT FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY 10 r RELMN RY; NOT FFOORRCONS RUZ ON; CITY OF RENTON 0 [PAW T Of POOL= wo...J1 CSTC SITE DEVELOPMENT S.W. 16th STREET IMPROVEMENTS DRAINAGE DETAILS - SHEET 3 I � 1 E.D. , .+. 02 10 92 1...•. moms .... G.S. 1 -- 1 OWE To. NWT •IKO J.oc 1 1 Of ON •t fl a..0 .o1m or 1 ...r•1 •.w .ww 7v.. Jn, 02 42 M E M O TO: File No. L92 -0050 FROM: Denni Shefrin DATE: Dec. 11, 1992 SUBJECT: Project Status Mark Hinshaw and I met with George Loschky (LMN) 12/9 at LMN's office. Discussed was the following: 1. Project concept is out for bid. Objective is for project cost not to exceed $32 /sq. ft. Bids are due back by Dec. 21st. 2. George explained that the project would total. appx. 160,000 sq. feet gross and would be in two phases. 3. George discussed the elements of the building: reduced building height; visibility from rail trestles; access; exterior building materials being considered (brick veneer /banding similar to UW Husky Stadium). 4. Mark felt architectural detailing should be stressed at the entry rather than along the sides of the building. Stacked mechanical equipment could be creatively incorporated into design - via illumination, etc. 5. Mark and I agreed that more design detailing was necessary at the entry and George seemed to agree, however, George did not spend time discussing a variety of innovative possibilities Mark attempted to raise. I emphasized the importance of moving on the design by the end of the year because of limits of Mark's contract. 6. George or Stuart will notify me if the project is a go sometime before the end of the year. 7. George said Stuart is preparing a position paper to demonstrate economic benefit to the City..../ and letter outline all outstanding issues not yet resolved. December 11, 1992 Phone call with Stuart. He indicated that should be able to have first design meeting Jan. 6. Raised issue of parking: that required be met on -site. After looking at code, code does allow off - premise parking where: •' 1. there is a deed or easement or other agreement (Sec. 18.56.040 (1)(B) "running with the land, the term of which shall be at least as long as the reasonable life of the premises served.... ") I also noted that BAR must approve parking spaces if they exceed a distance of 1,000 feet from "principle use ". I said I'd call back if there was a parking problem: on -site vs. off -site. la,u4r3 %)-kobbm\-, *METRO' Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle Exchange Building • 821 Second Ave. • Seattle, WA 98104 -1598 • (206) 684 -2100 August 20, 1992 Mr. Don Miles Miles Consulting Suite 211, Building 2 300 - 120th Avenue N.E. Bellevue, Washington 98005 REFERENCE: McLeod Exhibition Facility /Metro Commuter Rail Station 8CO3 Longacres Station Dear Mr. Miles: This letter is long overdue. I apologize for the delay; we have had some deadlines to complete the overall transportation system plan. One positive outcome from the delay is additional information is now available to confirm our discussions regarding the proposed Longacres commuter rail station. I am attaching copies of the following for your information: ♦ Preliminary station siting plan along the Burlington Northern Right -of -Way (Union Pacific alignment would be located further north on the west side of the parking, with pedestrian connections to Boeing through your site). This is extremely preliminary, and was used only for conceptual engineering cost purposes. • Alignment /aerial @ 1" = 400 (50 percent reduced) ♦ Year 2020 Operating Schedule (preliminary assumptions) In confirming our telecom from June, a fundamental to ensure the success of any public transit use is to provide the most convenient, reliable and accessible system possible to compete with the single- occupant vehicle. At the site level, this translates to minimizing number of transfers and assuring coordinated bus feeder systems and maximizing good pedestrian connections. The number of transfers greatly influences the perception of the transit "convenience "; simply stated, we will lose riders if more than two transfer are expected in any given trip. For example, the northbound commuter rail trip requires (1) initial transfer from a feeder bus or auto access at the beginning of the trip and high probability at the end of the trip, from King Street /IDS station to (2), another CBD network. RECEIVED AUG 2 01992 Q COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT McLeod Exhibit /Longacres Commuter Rail August 20, 1992 It would be counterproductive to force a third transfer as would be required from the remote parking site north of I -405 (to either the commuter rail system or to the Boeing /Exhibit Hall destination. Therefore, it would not be in the best interest of transit to pursue any options other than direct pedestrian connections to the destinations at this station site. We hope to continue the dialogue to provide safe and attractive access through your proposed project and explore further, the options for shared parking. Towards this end, we will keep you and City of Tukwila current with the operating scenarios as they develop. We are strorigly interested in pursuing joint use parking either north or south of the Exhibition Hall. Keep in mind the attached information is extremely conceptual and will only become realistic when the vendor proposals for commuter rail track and operations are received in the spring of 1993. We will be resolving station siting during an Environmental Assessment for the project to begin late this year. I have also attached just the executive summary section of good ULI document titled "Shared Parking" (ULI catalogue No. S22). I am sure Ron Cameron would have run across it. Please contact me should there be any questions regarding the Regional Transit Project, particularly, as it relates to the capital facilities. Once again, my sincere apologies in the delinquency of my response. Sincerely, oshiko Ii, Project Architect Regional Transit Project YI:lvc cc: Julie Rodwell, Metro Commuter Rail Dennis Shefrin, City of Tukwila Ron Cameron, City of Tukwila DJ Mitchell, Burlington Northern Railroad Warren Wilson, Union Pacific Railroad 0 IN INS I —111""1". Regional Transit Project tHQ COUN I Y • Mlle( COUICI • SI404 KUSIICOUNIV CI ri StAl CIVI Han, South Corridor Commuter Rail Report Longacres (BN) Figure 2-3 FT) :A 17 7.= Regional Transit Project South Corridor Commuter Rail Year 2020 Operating Schedule: Assumptions: Run Time = 1 hr. Time to turn train at Seattle and Tacoma = 30 min. Time Comment 6:OOAM Begin operations, trains depart Northbound from Tacoma and Southbound from Seattle. 6:30AM Trains depart Northbound from Tacoma and Southbound from Seattle. 6 :45AM Begin 15 minute AM Peak service, northbound & southbound. 8:OOAM Last trains depart northbound & southbound on 15 minute headway. 8 :30AM Trains depart Northbound from Tacoma and Southbound from Seattle. 9:OOAM Begin hourly service, northbound & southbound. 3:30PM Trains depart Northbound from Tacoma and Southbound from Seattle. 4:OOPM Begin 15 minute PM Peak service, northbound & southbound. 6:OOPM Last trains depart northbound & southbound on 15 minute headway. 6:30PM Trains depart Northbound from Tacoma and Southbound from Seattle. 7:OOPM Begin hourly service, northbound & southbound. 9:OOPM End service for day. Number of trips = 60 Number of trips in peak direction during peak period (i.e. 15 min. headways) = 14 EXECUTIVE SUM �� _� RY This study has examined the concept of shared parking with the objective of explaining how it works and developing a methodology to esti- mate its magnitude at locations throughout the United States. The significance of shared parking is related to growth in mixed -use development across the United States. Experience indicates that combining land uses results in a demand for parking space that is less than the demand generated by separate freestanding devel- opments of similar size and character. For the purpose of this study, shared parking data were collected for 161 development projects in several urban areas throughout the nation. These projects were selected to represent five basic types and six combinations of land use in downtowns and suburban areas. All had varying amounts of floor space. For the analysis of shared parking, peak parking ratios and hourly parking accumulations were deter- mined for single developments in freestanding situa- tions with maximum use of the auto as transportation. These characteristics provide the means to estimate the impact on peak parking space requirements when land uses are combined. TECHNICAL FINDINGS • Peak parking demand factors determined for single land uses were: • Offices: 3.0 spaces per 1,000 square feet (GLA - occupied), weekday 0.5 space per 1,000 square feet (GLA- occupied), Saturday • Retail: 5.0 spaces per 1,000 square feet (GLA - occupied), Saturday 3.8 spaces per 1,000 square feet (GLA- occupied), weekday • Restaurants: 20.0 spaces per 1,000 square feet (GLA- occupied), weekday or Saturday • Cinemas: 0.30 space per seat, Saturday 0.25 space per seat, weekday • Residential: 1.0 space per dwelling unit (per rate of auto ownership) • Hotel rooms: 1.25 spaces per occupied room. 1 .,_,....,...,,.., --• DESL 1, DPEHATM, AND MANAGEMENT OF SHARED PARKING Primary Concerns .......................... ....................55 Summary ......................... ............................... ...................60 Recommended Guidelines .................................. .............................60 Appendix A TELEPHONE SURVEY RESULTS .............................. ............................A -1 Appendix B SAMPLE SURVEY FORMS .................................. ............................B -1 Appendix C DEFAULT VALUES C -1 EXHIBITS 1. Distribution of Sample Locations by Land Use 9 2. Sample Distribution for Survey Questionnaire 9 3. Distribution of Survey Development Sizes 10 4. Distribution of Survey Sites 11 5. Office Parking Demand Ratios 14 6. Office Parking Accumulation 15 7. Regional Retail Parking Accumulation 17 8. Regional Retail Monthly Variation in Peak Parking Accumulation 18 9. Restaurant/Lounge Parking Accumulation 20 10. Restaurant/Lounge Monthly Variation in Peak Parking Accumulation 21 11. Cinema Parking Accumulation 22 12. Cinema Monthly Variation in Peak Parking Accumulation 23 13. Parking Characteristics of Hotels by Component 24 14. Hotel Parking Accumulation -Guest Rooms and Employees 25 15. Monthly Variation in Hotel Guest Room Occupancy 27 16. Monthly Variation in Hotel Convention Attendance 28 17. Residential Parking Accumulation 30 18. Range of Auto Use in Selected Urban Areas 31 19. Office/Retail Parking Accumulations 34 20. Hotel/Entertainment Parking Accumulations 21. Office/Hotel Parking Accumulations ................... ............................... 35 22. Retail/Entertainment Parking Accumulations 37 38 23. Effects of Captive Market - Percentage of Employees Who Are Also Patrons in Same or Nearby Development 39 24. Results of Test Cases .................... ............................... 25. Shared Parking Methodology 4 26. Representative Peak Parking Demand Factors 44 4 27. Representative Monthly Variations as Percentage of Peak Month 45 28. Representative Hourly Accumulation by Percentage of Peak Hour 46 29. Application of Recommended Methodology to Thst Case Number 10 40 30. Application of Recommended Methodology to Thst Case Number 14 50 31. Application of Recommended Methodology to Test Case Number 16 51 32. Application of Recommended Methodology to Test Case Number 17 52 53 viii THE CO CEPT OF S ARED N6 hared parking is defined as parking space that can be used to serve two or more individual land uses without conflict or encroachment. The opportunity to implement shared park- ing is the result of two conditions: • Variations in the peak accumulation of parked vehi- cles as the result of different activity patterns of adjacent or nearby land uses (by hour, by day, by season); • Relationships among land use activities that result in peoples' attraction to two or more land uses on a single auto trip to a given area or development. • • • • 1 BACKGROUND Shared parking is not a new phenomenon. It has long been observed in central business districts, sub- urban communities, and other areas where land uses are combined. While developers and public officials recognize the existence of shared parking, typical zon- ing codes do not provide for it.' Instead, most zoning codes are expressed in terms of peak parking indices or ratios for major types of individual land uses. While the peak ratios reflect the differences in parking de- mand generated by separate land uses and under cer- tain conditions, they do not reflect the fact that total or combined peak parking demand can be significantly less than the sum of the individual demand values. That is, parking requirements may be overstated if they require space for the peak parking accumulations of each individual land use. Realistically, the peak parking accumulations for individual land uses in a mixed —land use development can occur at different times. It usually occurs by hour of day, but it is also 1See Appendix A for the results of a telephone survey of public agencies concerning the provisions for parking in their zoning codes. 3 • Hourly accumulation of parked vehicles was signifi- cantly different among land uses. These differences in time provide an opportunity to share the use of parking facilities. The typical overall pattern was as follows: • Offices: midday peak, evening periods at less than 10 percent of peak • Retail: midday peak, evening periods less than 70 percent of peak • Restaurants: evening peak, midday at 50 percent of peak • Cinemas: evening peak, midday at 70 percent of peak • Residential: evening peak, midday at 60 to 85 percent of peak • Hotel guests: evening peak, midday at 30 percent of peak. • Seasonal variations represent another form of time differential. These differences can be used to achieve multiple use of parking facilities. In gen- eral, occupancy of retail and office facilities peaks in fail or winter, while restaurants, hotels, and cinemas experience peak occupancy in the summer. • Parking demand was not found to be sensitive to regional factors or city size. However, site - specific factors such as transit were more directly related to parking demand. • The analysis of existing multiuse projects indicated that reductions in parking space requirements re- sulting from shared parking have occurred. An anal- ysis indicates the following factors: • Actual peak parking occupancy was consistently lower than a gross parking demand estimate using single land use peak parking demands added together. • Estimates of shared parking demand using time differentials will, if properly constructed, be more reliable than estimates of gross parking demand. • Captive market effects (e.g., on -site markets such as office employees who also shop within the same development) often significantly reduced requirements for shared parking. For downtown mixed -use projects, these effects averaged about 60 percent, but they varied substantially. The variables affecting captive market activity were too site - specific to generalize a value. • The design and implementation of shared parking entail no fundamental conditions that preclude the practical operation and management of shared parking facilities. 2 Combining land uses results in a demand for parking space that is less than the demand generated by separate freestanding developments of similar size and character. RECOMMENDATIONS • To estimate shared parking, a four -step method is recommended: • Step 1: initial project review • Step 2: adjustment for peak parking factor • Step 3: analysis of hourly accumulation • Step 4: estimate of shared parking. • The methodology can be used for any project. The results of the research can be used, or different parking factors or accumulation data can be in- serted if reliable local information is available. • The methodology can be used in project planning. It is possible to identify an optimal mix of land uses to achieve maximum efficiency in providing parking space. ;tea %: ; '.�_�,ir�tl • 1. 1/,1!416 .; ,�: °fir ?la �T' ;ti '' �c� r • "�;s 4 74..........4.",ss- „;•..4... ' '..." 1.....-4*- . 11:.' . ". 1 . '' f• .• . 1-j ‘ _,....0...,. .„4.....vt...„,:i i isii, rez,j...s.:::0.,::‘.7....,..,..z....i::.r.:,.....r,,,...,...,..c.....;,...,....).t.,.......4,,..........ez.. r., r.4.1„:„%,......714.Vtl.,,,,,.....„7,...e,,?.....„•1-•-1,..";...‘,:re:. 1.1s..... : fe..i6/...‹..1, ../........,;:.... ......:41:fs:../ ./ ...If. • 1' ----...- ---,I' ••••./ .....:. 1.."--- I; f .1.'1'..Lii; '. 4i ;'"••4:: - 4.:;:' s.: ;.v:. •...•r • • ....It:. • , • ••• r • • •4 4 -••••••:••••:••... sr • • r ss, ''s • .r.• •••‘. • • • -, 1••...,-e . -•,!,-4-••■•-• ' •••• \ , •--4S11-/.....*.if .7 ' . ?sr- .44., : •••••••••.,-.1," _ • f - , '• : - ,.. " - ....• $.`".:1144" ,-,.7,..r. ,..-t-,...... .- _, •_ _ ., • ....., r. , • , • • _ • • .•-,.• ' (..;•': -.•''',"ii•.4.s1....it1. ..- ••• - • „ ;:i7. t•,,:; . . .- . .. '1•.;•.-v.:141:4;/. •1S4Yv - ?. . '.- ..-.? -,• ' - ! ".:. ef • r' ' ''''. r •,4 . • ' ....,, ......;;.,,,,::•,-.41.,. . E ., :. : ... • rt... -. , , ••■. ...ve' 7,. • , • 4.0•11""r--. •••■•••■• C-13 1,- • . • t'"'"6:. • 1 • . r : • -.. •-• ▪ 2•••••• • 4-4-4 , ".7•'• • _ • to C/{41•••477 CY' .... , ____-- ik..rocurc---1 • ; - - •-.- • -• :::::,;:/1-.1„. ..... ,..-- 7 -: •;.."-:'. -- e .11.! • . . - 9-) , ' -, — . - • •-'7..-.V ' '^ f 1-"" •_5:,''.:• •.:.•,!' `f•ri...' ,41-rs.,„-K"'. ....1- -.■.-ii':.,,::•;,:_.. •....,V, -,:l -,,.;,,:-.,..; • 4.rie.4 .. ti:t.7".• "4.' • .) -•'......, - ..-4- .... 4' :3 • • Lk, • `4' - ;le *. • . ; A,: • . 4 - ••• c'3•0 711FN: td11`,. to_ J. I - • . • ../7' • C4r ‘S. • - - 1.°"'"f34*CL.^. ••••rt.•• •Sr A4p4510,-- •••••■••••••••--- -• % - •••1=-:•••.----•t.`; 41114 ./.1% • • -?rtr-..k.' . •••,i• -• • • • - • !i„. _ 11.1.- 4y11,_ • , - 4741111..141°;../ „1, • • • •-. .P4' ,IV.t*/--••3'...1;;;--2,-:r-r” • ".• . 1^ = .,• • ,c• u . • ' • ••■• - ./.i;0.• f- .f./1 :7• ▪ N t .:5;• • ,• •• • yr;..? 4 7:•;:4=_•4: • . . ••••,• • .• -- • : - • • : r• • 1 - • . - •• Y•••• • ".`"A • . • • I. , • .• . • • E-19®-C-t-'ad7kT.Ei , tv•oweloa•-■ 0, ,1 •ol NC. tos„ D•rwr•rent o• T•onspo•lot.on, ...to• • • ■:.,1,011, 1.flonc•0 •••••....qn C.,101,on 47r,•:•411,0110' ;NOV re • ”r1 Wk.', • riPC..0 crnwr• • 4•43•43r, ca.srr. „1: ''1""^1'":" • . .EV.5:0•• ay !DATE Dre; ' • QE:C•••••E••".0E•.• EN* ••••. t • • • •"‘",;,.::•.. we. :1•1 " /6'4 .4".•,,ri-Netk•-• • - - 1 * ' ' I •4.'"a:,"' • • ••." . / . .-- • .t. • 1 • . ' .4 .. ' •?••••-• ..,- •. i - • migib•IN• R•ur2!..• . • . • :.., . • ki6.1 •,..s.., ..3 . • • • tr. • I t ,..--;„.„•.....;•,44-..:1 - • -,-17,....._,:--;;r..-- - ..------.2 ---- - • • - '•;,,z,'-''. - -,-.- • -4 • • %.'„ r- - ,-1-- : ' . • • v.".`..----':::_, .:.1.•:‘.:' .. '....i •r„.."'...-0-...ar.....,:„. '' . • -- •,...i...-- . • - I , , . ;.,,,,..-.,,-,....-9 ..r•N -N,•;- .,........:;•A .,.e.:: _ . . '•-",••••••r.,-,,,A. 4-.'••••••. 4..,..i,••• ,..-r-.7-..--•••••,-.41-••-r• •■•• • ..-• 4......%`';‘,,,..*- ;•I''' *.... , ••:•••• • • • ,„,.:`',..;:t.-_-; •.•-•-;','"..:.,,,:- '"7:!"--.?,- , ••• ..••-•••••••,%.--4, ' ..-”; I ••••' ..r.- • .s . • . • • . i ' • . , '.4••••••;, • ••' t ; :.,,,,f. -`,f, • ... —• , .: • • • •••s, ..• •., • , • 1 % p ''. ••••• 4., _ • ...:„? .14 • •'''.'vr ..4 .....:**. '''....•• '''''..'.\;•• ‘.••' fs:-.. •.. 1■4,:-%-k,i•.r. ,' - ••• ,-. ......:."e 45,4, c. • • .....-,._ •- .. „;-r i • :.. , •• 1- = • / • ''''Ii...-'4,1, 0- ( • • :: ;. •--' '‘'' tr • -,--.- •,,,? ,-;:- --.4-::.`:, ai • , ...do', •.:".■• "V.:...., . ' • ... ..••• • .,..e. 0 • • ••..... . .. . . c., ... - .... -.:•;.: :- • : - ... "r r • • Y:ss•-"•• • • • • . a . -s •-•............ • • ..'...--.. s,. . ..... ..7-..s..; .....-4„,... - . . " • ` - / • , • , s. - . • -. , i • • -.....• ,, ••,, 7,- ' - -,..g.„... • - ... ,.....z...,.... . . . , ,..... ,. , ; • 1 .;•,•, „. . . , NC RIV : f• .. .1 . • . . ...... ....., .., . . . • .. . . 4 ..,I• ' • 1 . ; • ' Ai•14.•••• • .- '''''' •'• . f •••• •••: .. N tl ..., • .* '. • • ... ... '' ''..., •1'' " ' r. .. ' (4 ! . . , ' • .1?'. ' . . ..s. ':.' :■ • . ' .. . . • ' l'• • ! • •,* :.• • C. t • • NY. • 3.. • • • , . ••••• • r •••,* •••• • 4"••• • • 4 • •••• • - " -• 1 • • •. •••• •• „„ J. • c..1D • - • • , r • :f• . •••;.- • • •••••-• 7 :••••••:-.c.. • • . ••• „.•• • ' 'A- -. • . • .. ' • -•-• . • • e. • ;.0,16„ .)-,. -kte4/5"' - • -•,•'; • ' • •::/:.., • r , • r ••••• Xi* It. • : i --.74',,C4 / , • • •••••. _IR . • ts, --%47171t.t.:•• • *-- • • or of••• ":•• :•••• • • 1' :.;-" • C:T . • • • e. art • C.) :1;r •• ..c.,t :-■•• • . Tr -**6-4.-c%-ji,z -- r -.- '4' - - • 4 ;•S ; tr -- .• - 1 • GO ' '' ;.■'' ti •• %1";... . • • • ,_ ?... • • .• 4 . ;,....j. , ...;.,!.i., . ....,... r r r . . , ,..; ..tx. • ...... ,rig-!-- ......4 ,a, wILLE-,„ ' • . , - • • 11-.1 . ,."IttPti- ••i:•*4...- ... • , .---- .-. i••P`. -..: .. , ifWy-• ''' • • ' t ' if, - .. •k„ .;;:-'7,..:.---". - ."-;- . . z 4•0•.`......47.•: • • ''....:** ....• ; .1 -::4;;-,..,;/ / '' -- — ;- - •... • • •.• ":..;r _ 'lb :,....• -- i..,--70'Iri ';'•!--......,..., • tv .- •-•••", s • ".•••• krt. °eta •••••• I • Vr, * • PR rill • • •••1•41.• rrIK:r • ' *V• A. r:-.!.141••• ..•••• • -,-.` ip•-• • • •••:7.4Z-1Y4 •4=*- • iA" co- it .tt :.•172F.,Mrs,VVIett ••••tnt. am••1•9• t.;.,,rgs•• •" • `• • '7A - — • • • -1. '0:- .1..,:473-•%`:.0:- • "• ▪ • . • . „ •••0.4 -/ litwu Vitt - r1/4- • 7 ■•••• krk •814 • • - • •,,f ; r'• • ••••••:. • e.... •• ..... - • • •• • ',•I'str44•••• :'::.:. t t • ....... • • '6 .4".• - -....t..• • iiit...- ' ''• .7. ' •-• • ••.7.--- ' ••••• .7.7/'1••!'' ''' II.c:X"....-1.1,-•'-'4•C_T,.' ..„ • r• ....... :;;',X" • •••.,,,,•••••"` •:°c• 7.-•••%"" • • • .• •••*7-.... • • • i:•; • .‘••••••••,.. • 7f...A •••• .7•••• ., • • •• • •-• ---"•••• " ••• • I:: * r • -- ' •-• *E. ; • . • ••• 1-•••• 7 •• ••••• '•••• • ' • s •,• .• • • • •til • • --....:. .." • - : r ''' -.- - - - ' 4 . '.,,,- • :,- • • % ,k•-•-,•,4 • ...- jC•• • - .."`....-' .. ".••••••• /: -•• ....,;‹,...,.. -'4-* : I'•■ • • .. : ... • --... - .'" .•-• ... „ .. .. . -_, -•-..... .. • ‘ ..... -*: ;,(‹: •••• • \ ' •4•Ii'AT-.•'-". . . , .... rt -4 •: t:'•- • " • ‘s'`741,.;`.• • r • „`•:•-?-10- . • ?7.1.- •••• • Wrze " „.t.rnir;;;'•' "`• • • • . 7 6'g'W • . • • 4 -• ; , • - • • --,447.fil&' 411P-Z; t . . •• t ; `IL • • ?;•;• 7.t., • . ••• •••-• • •::•••• p■!•17....f•I • 7.:?...g; .:• . • *R44$4E ' A . • . ; , - .."- • itZ--$1 • •• r , • -••••„ L4'4••,,,•••.„ .••••"••• ••••••• • r• - • 'F.,- • .- • • • • --zr7Sr." •• • „ • ••• • 'W r, • • / 4t.T.RE YiR;14 • iv a ; • " • , -`•'• • • • 7 •• . • - 7 `7. .. • . . • •c•f, • ••••::, It•"•. • • •.• • • . „ •••••••-,;: • e • • . "4; •41'‘ "IA. • r ••••:r. „ "•• ..4.••• • C. • • • • • • t.,... • :.-1-i:Z•mo•-• : • •• • • • • • 1 • ••••••.. . t 4 • - • •-•/.'"•;•/ • • .. r• • • ir • • oc•ootont •os fl 0 wont from Ir.. 1000•I00e0, txtsso• n ostml.o. rot. Inc NAIOOMPtI04 .41 $1ja.r.00 BY, DES.CNED: RECOuRENOED foMETRO SCALE: r 400' RRPROREO CON•RoC7 NO: DATE. Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle FILE NO SOUTH CORRIDOR COMMUTER RAIL AERIAL PLAN DRAPING NO SCR-06 cCtT 00 6 0,22 r‘t . 4 fiRiirtz . . - • " et ; •if • • • ••■• I • •••••• "• . • -• tr. - , . ..- • .fti'?.'1'.'..V::. • -"42*-CZZ47. . t ' -ffr• • :` m Z. • 1 • • / 4.-; 2 • 44kr. -. REVISION BY DATE DWG RETTRENCE 115:1MOM yn. pc •,n1,0t,On ctocion•nt aOs PorOGN lonOnC.0 IhrOvg. craMi th* •/ Fn= T.-TratC;( U.S o■ Toon. comtloo, Urtoon te....conalgtn 4.4rr.mstect•on .."1.• 0."0.6.00,11 of tn. UOfO t" ICN31":"K" re." Ca"." ' ""C•"" "'kW" 9 4 o• me nova 8 • • D suNmEt ; OCS+C.ACO RECOu.E't 1APP140<0. E • •,!-;„:1141 • L. f • • ;31' ,070S1)-3.1 ; • I' • • i 1 mer • _ r7-"1111.:1- 7 f...:1 • . • . j • I • '•• • ) ' .1fi • "...II • ' I •' 3 it ) • • --...ii3isosit,•140.1ruz==igt"..4124r..4`.:,•-Vt;-1;!-Z-A4trire.44-1.,.....''.-:::•;2.,-....;' • • - • :.2••••• ." • ..• ' 7 te• • • 0.• - . ••••••••If 1 w. -.. , . - -:.• - . .. ....... -.....1.,? -• ••••••:..:* •••••••••••••••‘ •••••••,,,,,,.... ...„, ,,,,,......... ........._..........__,,.. 77r......,..24,............ ......1,..17.....„• .......,.....-..- • ......„.................4 .............:....„.. ......: 1. •I• _.....fr4"..cga. ... r -.. T, I • -.....:1 • ..11.A....... .... "-..... i• i • • • I • .... ;.,• - • . —71 f, I • r • .• J; • I ( • "••••••__ • r • . " I • - • 1 • • .1 I • • • • en • ••• -. ••11•.•••••0•11 ••••• •••• 0••••••,... m•••••■••••••• .- • 4•1."". •b•••• r------ . SUB.MCC` eT, •• • - _ • ••••• • < # • 7 . r . • 1 r - ., 4.. : •••••••• 1 —I ....._____... CENII ••••••—• • ' ,--..... ......,.— f 7 1••„,. 1 - ... ,' i „,--- ..-____ _______ t• , • ''.'z'c,' A. 1> • ' , • I -. ..i .• ' i `Zaiis. ' ' .-.7... - t :',...,.4-t'..t. t,t_;•1:1... t ! ! 1- ---";-- flt..0 ••0: OCSJC.140. JP:METRO RECO..EMOCO T.: 400' CPS 117•C T NO. Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle SOUTH CORRIDOR COMMUTER RAIL AERIAL PLAN D•1•••••C NO, SCR-07 S.CC T 7 c` 22' H •4, Earl Clymer, Mayor CITY OF RENTON Planning /Building /Public Works Department Lynn Guttmann, Administrator August 14, 1992 Mr. Rick Beeler Director Department of Community Development City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 SUBJECT: McLeod Exhibition Center Revisions Dear Mr. Beeler: AUG 1 71992 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT We have reviewed the latest drawings for the McLeod Exhibition Facility which we received from your staff in July. We note that this latest proposal reflects an almost 85,000 square foot expansion (316,000 sq. ft.) and would thus consider this to be a revised project, which under SEPA would require subsequent environmental review. Although the applicant has completed a revised environmental checklist dated June 24, 1992 it does not, in our opinion provide adequate information on the increased impacts of this project in such areas as transportation, noise, and surface water drainage. This latter is particularly troubling because of the increased amounts of runoff from the additional off -site parking lots that will have to be provided to accommodate this enlarged development. Aesthetically, we believe the latest revision (June 25, 1992) shows a substantial improvement in the overall appearance of the proposed facility, particularly the east elevation that will be partially visible from the Boeing Longacres Park site east of the Burlington Northern tracks. The scored and textured concrete panels now create greater visual interest and should do a lot in breaking up the apparent scale of the building. It still has a strong industrial metaphor that should transition well with the surrounding quasi - industrial /office park development in the area. Overall, we believe the architects have responded well in this latest scheme to a challenging site and difficult design problem. The use of strong design elements such as the pylons and the exterior stair elements also help break up the facades and add visual interest. With additional clarification and your continued assurances that our concerns will be addressed, we believe that our earlier decision to withdraw our appeal of Tukwila's previous environmental determination for this project should continue to apply. I have attached a list of issues that we believe still need to be addressed before this project goes to the Tukwila Board of Architectural Review. We would be happy to meet with your staff to go over these in the near future. If we can be of further assistance please feel free to contact me at 277 -5582. Donald K. Erickson, Manager Development Planning Section 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 92055 McLeod Exhibit Facility Development Issues Traffic Based upon the earlier TSI traffic analysis that addressed impacts to intersections within the City of Renton, it was previously decided by the City of Tukwila that the applicant would provide a "worst case" traffic mitigation fee to the City of Renton and based upon current transportation studies being conducted in the Valley area, a rebate would be given if impacts are apportioned differently or found to be less than the original estimate. Given the approximately 85,000 sq. ft. increase in the size of the exhibition facility, we are concemed as to whether the original traffic levels on which the $200,000 was estimated are still adequate. How many trips will be generated with this increase in size of the complex and with parking now located to the north of 1 -405 will impacts to intersections within Renton change? Aesthetics The visual impacts of the subject proposal are a major concern to us as previously noted because this 56 foot tall structure will be visible from most of the Boeing Longacres Park site as well as much of the Valley. We do believe that the overall appearance of the facility has been greatly improved with the more refined and architecturally integrated exterior concrete panels and large unifying pylons, which are now a major design element. Whereas the project still has a strong industrial metaphor, it is much more refined than before and the east elevation at least now shares comparable architectural consideration to that given the west elevation. Color and graphics will be an important consideration and should be address to the extent possible before this project goes through the Tukwila Board of Architectural Review. Circulation In terms of overall orientation and pedestrian orientation the City of Renton still has some major concerns. As you know, the City has recently designated its downtown area and an urban center under the new GMA. As a consequence we assume light rail of some form will eventually connect the downtown, via the Burlington Northern right of way, to ether the Burlington Northern rail line that runs immediately to the east of the proposed new exhibition hall facility or the Union Pacific rail line to the west of the proposed new facility. With the Boeing Longacres Park development likely employing 10,000 or more people, it would highly desirable to locate a station in the vicinity of that proposed office park and the new exhibition hall. Whereas we would prefer to see a station between the two developments, along the Burlington Northern right -of -way, whether it goes here or to the west on the Union Pacific line, some provision should be made now in anticipation of it. This would include, to the extent possible, unencumbered pedestrian access from the Boeing Longacres Park site to the east. The current proposal does not appear to have either anticipated should a siting of a light rail station in the future or explored ways that it might serve the proposed facility as well as the Boeing Longacres Park office development. Such a station might also help mitigate traffic impacts from the exhibition facility. Provision for east -west pedestrian circulation through easements across the site in this direction would be very desirable. Also, we believe that a facility of this magnitude should have elevated pedestrian walkways like normal sidewalks to distinguish pedestrian areas from vehicular areas. Pedestrian striping at the rear of parking stalls is not a reasonable solution given the numbers of people in the area. MCLEODLT 0 Noise The applicant has not provided a noise study that we know of. If car and other types of auctions are held here noise is likely to be an issue particularly if it is allowed to spill out of the building or any activities of this nature occur outside of the building. We would prefer to see some form of restrictive covenant placed on the property that would prohibit its use for such outside events. Light and Glare The applicant has not provided a Tight and glare analysis on the project either. The schematic drawings do show wall mounted light fixtures at a height of 24 feet along the east facade of the 818 ft long building that, unless shielded, would likely be visible from the proposed office park on the Longacres site. Details on all parking lot lighting fixtures as well as building mounted lighting fixtures will need to be provided for staff review. Air Quality To date we have not received anything from the City of Tukwila addressing this issue. It is reasonable to assume that an additional 1,500 to 2,000 cars would create increased levels of air emissions in the area, which, during certain times of the year when there are air inversions, might have an adverse impact on air quality in the immediate area. Surface Water The schematic plans to indicate that the applicant has recognized the presence of wetlands on the site and is now proposing mitigation for these. The schematic plans do not give enough information to determine how well these wetlands are being protected and /or mitigated. The plans are also unclear as to how storm water is being handled. Staff informed Tukwila earlier this year that the 100 year flood plain did flood portions of the site and they had indicated that they were going to have the applicant address this. What we do know is that the subject proposal is intended to tie into the storm water drainage line that Boeing is putting in under SW 16th Street which drains into Springbrook Creek. Drainage will comply with the Nelson Place /Longacres Way Drainage Agreement completed several years ago. Also, Tukwila has apparently also adopted the King County Surface Water Drainage Manual. Landscaping Poplars around the edge of the parking lot should be deep rooted to prevent damage to parking lots. Devices are available that force roots to grown down. Trees selected for the parking areas should have high resistance to disease and insects to avoid "weeping" on parked autos. POSSIBLE MITIGATION MEASURES Because of the increased size (100,400 sf), staff consider this a revised project requiring additional mitigation measures. After reviewing the latest schematic plans, staff recommend that the ERC authorize the Secretary to prepare a response on your behalf to Rick Beeler, Director of Community Development in Tukwila suggesting that the following measures be made conditions for subsequent project reviews and approvals by that city. 1. In order to mitigate traffic impacts to Renton, the applicant shall be required, pursuant to WAC 197 - 11-060(4)(b), to contribute a fair share dollar amount to mitigate traffic impacts this project is likely to MCLEODLT .. have on intersections within the City of Renton. This amount is currently estimated to not exceed $200,000.00 and shall be paid at the time of Renton's adoption of the Valley Transportation Plan Update or prior to the issuance of occupancy permits, whichever comes first. 2. In order to address potential light and glare impacts, the applicant shall be required to conduct a light and glare analysis to identify the extent, if any, of visible glare off site particularly as it might impact properties to the east of the site and possibly wetlands on or near the site. 3. In order to address potential impacts on air quality, the applicant shall be required to identify the likely impacts of providing parking for an additional 1,500 to 2,000 cars in this location. 4. In order to address aesthetic impacts, the applicant shall consider providing a landscape screen along the rear (east) facade of the proposed 860 ft long structure from properties to the east with significant landscaping, including the planting of mature evergreen trees. 5. In order to address storm water management issues and ensure adequate water quality, the applicant shall be required to comply with all relevant provisions of the King County Surface Water Drainage Manual. 6. In order to reduce user reliance on single occupancy autos, the applicant shall be required to design the proposed exhibit hall in a way that it could take advantage of a possible light rail transit stop along the Burlington Northern right -of -way to the east of the proposed facility. Currently the proposed exhibition facility is oriented towards the west, turning its back on the Burlington Northern railroad lines and the proposed 156 acre, 10,000 employee office park to the east. (If a light rail transit stop were located in the area, we assume it would try to capture some of these close -by employees.) 7. In order to facilitate pedestrian circulation in an east -west direction across the site between Tukwila and Renton, the applicant shall provide pedestrian easements that facilitate workers on either side of the site getting to a light rail station, assuming one is developed in the vicinity in the foreseeable future. 8. In order to lessen future noise impacts from outdoor auctions or similar activities including sports or entertainment events, the applicant shall agree to the placing of restrictive covenants on the site prohibiting such outdoor activities as part of this development proposal. cc: Lee Wheeler John Webley Jim Hanson MCLEODLT MEMORANDUM TO: Denni Shefrin, Associate Planner - DCD Jack Pace, Senior Planner, DCD FROM: Gary Schulz, Urban Environmentalist - DCD DATE: July 6, 1992 RE: McLeod Exhibition Facility - Wetland /Drainage Permitting Per my review letter addressed to Stuart McLeod (April 22, 1992), I have approved the conceptual wetland mitigation proposal (Watershed Dynamics 3/17/92) and requested selected details be included on the final mitigation plan. The design and intent of the plan to expand Wetland #12 is feasible and will increase the overall functional values of that area. The wetland buffer will be an enhanced area ranging from 50 to 75 feet. The following comments are offered from my review of the June 24, 1992 set of site plans - Design Review Submittal. 1) Water source for irrigation of the South Parking Lot landscape may be temporarily needed for the enhanced wetland buffer plantings adjacent . to the parking lot. 2) Storm drainage features ie. swales, wetpond will follow King County Stormwater Manual criteria and use recommended vegetation seed mixtures. "Grass Lined Swale" or "Storm Drainage Swale" labeling should be changed to "Biofiltration Swale ". See Sheets L.4, S.7, S.8. 3 Storm drainage runoff on the River Parking Area is shown as draining to the north without detention. Conversation with Mr. Don Miles, Engineer identified this as a mistake. Drainage flow should be shown to enter the stormwater pond facility south of I -405. Cady of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard • Tukwila, Washington 98188 John W. Rants, Mayor April* 22,, 1992 Mr. Stuart McLeod McLeod Development Company 213 Lake Street South Kirkland, Washington 98033 Re: Proposed Wetland Mitigation for McLeod Exhibition Facility. Dear Stuart: I have reviewed the report - Selected Mitigation And Monitoring Program (for) Wetland And Upland Buffer Creation And Enhancements (3/17/92) prepared by Watershed Dynamics. The purpose of this letter is to approve the suggested mitigation measures included in the subject report. A compensation ratio of 1.5:1 will be used to replace four small Type 3 wetlands on the site. Additional study, during the growing season, supported a re- determination that a fifth on -site wetland lacked the hydrology necessary for the City's wetland.. method (FICWD 1989) criteria. Therefore, 0.69 acres of wetland will be filled and replaced by expanding the large on -site wetland with nearly 1.03 acres of new wetland area. In addition, there will be enhancement in' the wetland and 50 -foot buffer zone. The emphasis of the mitigation will be to increase the overall functional value and habitat diversity of Wetland #12. The mitigation components that are considered significant to the existing wetland include increased water storage capacity, creation of new wetland habitats, and establishment of a. dense, high quality buffer. Successful development of new wetland areas, as proposed, should easily exceed the structure and function of filled wetlands. ,/ Since the wetland buffer zone will be reduced from 100 to 50 feet,d 73 the enhancement /restoration features of the proposed mitigation plan should focus mostly on the establishment of a high quality buffer. The final mitigation plan should include a few more details such as construction sequence information, planting details and specifications, and a monitoring program that includes survival and cover criteria for emergent vegetation. The hydrologic monitoring schedule could be closely coordinated with vegetation monitoring after the first two years. Cost estimates associated with construction, planting, and monitoring will be appreciated for determining accurate bond amounts. Phone: (206) 433 -1800 • City Hall Fax (206) 433 -1833 Stuart McLeod April 20, 1992 Page 2 This letter is not intended as approval of the final wetland plan but hopefully will assist in preparation of the final details and mapping. If there are questions regarding this letter or project, please• feel free to contact me at 431 -3662. Sincerely, C. Gary &Schul z Urban Environmentalist cc: Rick Beeler, Director - Community Development Moira Bradshaw, Associate Planner - Community Development Phil Fraser, Senior Engineer - Public Works Don Miles, Miles Consulting Tom Demming, Watershed Dynamics psi Transportation Solutions, Inc. 16310 NE 80111 Street, Suite 100 Redmond, WA 98052.3861 (206) 8834134 (800) 285 -4134 FAX: (206) 867 -0898 April 20, 1992 To: Moira Carr- Bradshaw From: David Mar . ey Subject: Parking Demand Forecasts As a follow -up to our telephone conversation last week, this memo attempts to provide you with some of the information the City of Tukwila desires to make a more informed decision on the parking demand forecasts presented as a basis for the parking requirement for the proposed McLeod Exhibition Facility. Specifically, we are providing added discussion regarding the effect of multiple events in the building; information regarding Mode Split, Average Vehicle Occupancy, and other factors used in estimating the parking demand for the events scheduled to use the facility. Multiple Events As you know, the proposed facility has *ability to be partitioned and thus can accommodate more than one activity ata given time. While a specific number of such event days are not known and willchange from one year to the next, we acknowledge the possibility for such an occurrence. We understand the City's interest is the potential for two combined events to attract attendance and in turn, parking demand that exceeds the peak attendance and parking demand for a large single event. To address this issue, we need to understandtthe types of activities that are likely to occur simultaneously. Most simultaneous activities will involve a Move -in or a Move -out of one event coinciding with the actual public operation or the Move - in/Move -out of another event. Because Move -in or Move -out involves a small group of people (250 persons maximum), the added demand of this group and the associated trucking activity will be negligible. In those situations where more than event has public event days that occur simultaneously, these events will typically be very small. These will involve events that are special interest in character, whether they are consumer shows or trade shows. Typical examples include-Stannp Collectors, Gun, Dog or Cat, Gem, and Ethnic consumer shows; and/or mechanical equipment, travel, wholesale fashion, office equipment, and businesselectronic trade shows. The unique aspect to all of these events is they usually needa moderate space for display of their wares, but are targeted to a very specializedaudience. Moira Carr - Bradshaw` Page 2 Based on our forecasts, these types of events have peak parking demands that are typically 300 to 500 cars with peaks that rarely if ever exceed 1000 cars. Such peaks all occur on weekend days. Accordingly, if more than one of these events were to occur simultaneously, the combined parking demands (600 to 2000 cars) would never be close the peak demands of a single major event and would be easily accommodated in the parking supply TSI proposes be a condition of this project. The concern that a small event would occur simultaneously with a large event is mute because the larger event will require all the floor space and would not want a smaller event to coincide with their event with the exception of Move- in/Move- out. Accordingly, we believe the City can conclude that multiple events will have attendance levels and parking demands that are well below the 90 percentile peaks forecasted and well within the supply proposed to be associated with this building. Mode Split and Average Vehicle Occupancy The mode split and average vehicle occupancy figures used in the TSI forecasts have been assembled from a variety of sources, but are primarily based on sample counts taken at various consumer or trade show events in the Pacific Northwest. Regrettably, there is no generally accepted source of such information (a standards manual). TSI's experience indicates that there is no general rule but that the mode split relates to a combination of the event site location in combination with the specific event characteristics. A site well served by transit or by taxis will have a higher proportion of patrons using these modes of travel. If there is peripheral off -site parking there will be a larger group of persons walking. In the case of this facility, a nominal mode split was applied to reflect the number of people that would walk from nearby hotels (principally exhibitors). For several events, TSI had specific information about charter bus or shuttle bus programs that are a part of that specific event. It continues to interest me that even the most isolated site has 2 to 5% of their people arriving by some mode other than in a car that parks on -site. Some of this is the little recognized but increasingly dominant component of drop -off passengers. It is our intent to provide a Prefefed route: for; hotel vans to gain easy access and egress for this purpose (this was not assumed in the mode splits used in the parking demand forecasts however). Average vehicle occupancy (ACO) will also vary considerably and again there is no general rule. The only substantial amount of data relating to this subject applies to sporting events or concerts and shows the ACO ranging from 2.3 to 3.5 persons per car. We are not aware of any comprehensive published information on consumer and trade shows. Even if such information existed, we believe it would show that such information is event dependent. psi Transportation Solutions Inc Moira Carr-Bradshaw- Page 3 The survey of the Seattle International BoatShow indicated something between 2.4 and 2.6 persons per car. We do observe that as events get larger, the average vehicle occupancy increases. This is presumably because they cater to a broader audience and thus, more people attend the event with family members or other friends. Events like graduations will experience higher ACOs since this is more of a family event (3.3 to 4.0+) while professional testing events experience 1.0 to 1.2 ACO. Trade Shows experience lower ACOs in the range of 1.3 to 2.4). As*a 'genet altule,/most people use a value of 3.0 persons per car. 6tI40-;? Accordingly, TSI believes the values used in developing the forecasts for parking demand are very conservative. This conservative posture was used because we recognize that provision of adequate parldng is not an issue simply to address City parking requirements but is key to the marketability of the facility. Availability of parking is one of the drawbacks of the Seattle Center and the Washington State Convention and Trade Centers ability to host large consumer and trade shows. I trust this provides you with a better understanding of the basis for our analysis. I regret that there is no manual we can use as a basis for our values of ACO and Mode Split but believe, TSI brings to the table more special event experience, knowledge, and successful operation of &etas and facilities than you will find elsewhere. I will continue to strive to find you information about specific events so we can all feel more comfortable with the parking demand forecasts. In closing I must note that the forecasted demand presented to you assumes that all parking will occur on-site. Considering we are going to charge for parking, and looking at the experience with Longacres where people park off-site and walk to the track, we believe the demands forecasted are again higher than will actually materialize on event day. katia57D : z 111/91.es (513 )?%) orhEe_ cyz.ariLlivcrs /Peiefi(16 ones ,fiser61/1/60q69— TSI Transportation Solutions Inc. c. TSI 'fransportation Solutions, Inc. 16310 NE 80th Street, Suite 100 Redmond, WA 98052-3861 (206) 883-4131 (800) 285-4134 FAX: (206) 867-0898 April 3, 1992 Ms. Moira Carr-Bradshaw Associate Planner City of Tukwila Planning Department 6200 S. Center Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 Subject: McLeod Exhibition Facility Dear Ms. Carr-Bradshaw: Thank you for your letter of March 30, 1992 requesting additional information so the architectual design review process can continue. This letter is intended to review our common objective for providing-parking, to identify the inconsistency in the current interpretation of the city zoning code and to provide you with additional information that will allow the city to make a more accurate and appropriate definition of parking for the'nIvIcLeod Exhibition facility. We understand the parking requirementused, by the city for the proposed Exhibition Center is based on the person oceupancy of the building. Because there is no other reference, the person occupancy is based on the Uniform Building Code Table 33A which is the standard for measuring the safe exit capacity of a building. We agree with the city that this table, although a convenient reference, is not applicable aka standard for parking and use of such a reference renders erroneous results. Please see the attached memorandum relating to the UBC. This approach is erroneous because public assembly facilities encompass a general category of land use that serves as a catch-alLfor specific uses that can include, stadia like the Kingdome, convention centei:Oike the Washington State or Bellevue Convention Center, and regional eAtertaiment facilities like the Seattle Center. Considering this broad range of:Uses; it has been found that patronage, and in turn parking demand, are best definedfiy the use characteristics associated with the facility not the floor area. Agaii'seeithe attached discussion of the UBC (attachment 1). Ms. Moira Carr- Bradshaw Page 2 April 3, 1992 In the case of the proposed project floor area is not a valid measure because much of the floor area is occupied with display exhibits and booths (attachment 2). Thus, the prudent person would search for a generally accepted resource defining the peak occupancy for different events and /or facilities. For several reasons such a reference does not exist - first, most events, unlike trade and consumer shows, have a set start and end time which permits a reasonably accurate count of peak use; and second, facility operators and researchers have found that peak use for non - capacity events are simply not recorded. We confirm this lack of generally accepted resource data through our work in planning, operating and retrofitting most of the public assembly facilites in the Puget Sound Region and Alaska and our involvement on National Institute of Transportation Engineers committees dealing with the subject. To resolve this problem, the project sponsor retained 43 & Associates, a nationally recognized event facility management team, to prepare an economic feasibility study. Naturally, the basis for this study is an event calendar with daily attendance levels. Attached, find an event listing used in the development of the traffic and parking demand estimates. This event listing is based on interviews with many of the consumer and trade (attachment 3) show promoters on the West Coast and Canada who indicated a strong interest in bringing shows to this type building provided they could secure consistent dates on an annual basis (a major deterrent in most existing public assembly facilities). Then TSI was asked to survey information regarding ticket sales, parking counts, and traffic counts for several typical events as a basis for estimating traffic volumes. While a good estimate of traffic demand could be developed, information for peak parking occupancy (building ocupancy) was unavailable. Accordingly, studies like the one attached for the Seattle Internationl Boat Show during this past record setting attendance year were made. This type study is one of the few that counted both entrance and exit patronage as a basis for determining peak occupancy. This information was combined with other data for smaller shows to define peak occupancy and, in turn, peak parking demand See attached survey (attachment 4). We believe this is the type survey that should be used in determining the peak parking demand for the proposed facility. If the City of Tukwila approach to determining parking demand for a major boat show (peak person occupancy 90th TSI Transportation Solutions Inc Ms. Moira Carr- Bradshaw Page .3 April 3, 1992 percentile divided by four), the peak parkng demand is 2035 cars. (8158 persons /4). The division by four is typical for many public assembly facilities and is intended to account for higher than typical vehicle occupancy and mode split to transit, taxi and charter bus. See the attached memo from Miles Consulting which reflects the parking requirements for public assembly facility uses in other local jurisdictions which use one parking space per four seats as a typical standard (attachment 5). TSI attempted to refine this approach with actual data assembled from surveys made as part of work performed on this and other projects in the Northwest. Attached is a listing of projects reflecting TSI experience with other public assembly facilities. Applying this data relating to mode split and average vehicle occupancy, and defining the 90th percentile level of demand (typical level of demand used in defining parking demand for many land uses such as retail shopping centers like Southcenter) the parking demand we believe to be appropriate is 2150 spaces. Note that this is higher than dividing the peak person occupancy by four. In summary, I believe that we can all agree with the city that use of the UBC occupancy table as a basis for defining parking demand is inconcistent with the intended purpose of the city zoning code and this is factually erroneous. We find that each public assembly facility is unique and as such, a reliable forecast of event occupancy should be used as a basis for defining required parking. While it would be consistent with the city zoning code to simply divide the peak occupancy by_four (2035 spaces) to establish demand, we believe 43 & Associates and TSI have provided the data to provide a more realistic demand (2150 parking spaces). Thus, we conclude the existing basis for estimating the parking requirement is i erroneous and that either-2035 or 2150 parking stallsshould be used as the city's �r requirement for on -site parking. Thus, it is our opinion that the applicant does not fall short of the reasonable definition of parking requirement under the zoning code. Rather the applicant meets or exceeds the code requirements. In closing we should note, that parking is key to the success of this type facility as it becomes one of the first and most visible detractions from the patron's experience of attending an event. On those days (tyically weekend days and evenings) when extraordinary peaks occur, the applicant intends to have a i31 Transportation Solutions Inc. : Ms. Moira Carr - Bradshaw Page; April 3, 1992 supplemental plan for remote parking with sliuttle transit combined with a complete Transportation Management Plan to encourage higher than typical high occupancy use. I trust this provides you and the city with the information you need to make a reasonable translation of the zoning code:in‘regard to the on -site parking requirement. If you or other city officials or'. staff have any question, I invite you to contact me so we can clarify any questions and move forward with this aspect of the project design Sincerely, Transportation Solutions, Inc. David D. Markley Principal DDM/pb cc: Stuart McLeod, The McLeod Development Company Don Miles, Miles Consulting Ted Bowsfield, 43 & Associates Attachments 02SUM T$I Transportation Solutions Inc 47.44.6,44m r 1 DATE: April 1, 1992 TO: File - McLeod Exhibition Center FROM: Don Miles SUBJECT; Parking We have reviewed Land Use Code Sections 18.56.050 "Required Number of Parking Spaces ", and understand the need to provide uniform control of off - street parking spaces on specific types of facility uses. The intent of the exhibition facility is to provide "adequate, convenient and safe off - street parking!' First then, let us look at the code and its intent. The code states that the amount of parking for an assembly facility is calculated by the occupancy divided by four. Because of its convenience, the city has used the Uniform Building Code (UBC) Table 33A as a basis for this calculation. We cannot find where the Land Use Code refers to the Uniform Building Code (UBC), and when referring to the specific code section suggesting control of the number of spaces tied to specific uses, neither do we see a reference to Table 33A of the Uniform Building Code. We understand that the only purpose of Table 33 -A is to provide safe exit from a building. In no way has the International Conference of Building Officials suggested this table serve as a basis for determining the number of persons arriving per vehicle or per trip. To illustrate the misappropriate use of this table, we can see that Table 33 -A (UBC) list an office building as having 10 occupants per 1,000 square feet. Table 4 would require this space be provided with 2.5 spaces for this 1,000 square feet. But as we can see between the two tables, one speaks only to people using a building for life safety issues and the other to a probable number of people who may have arrived in the vehicle which parked in one space. A comparable of this case using the tables might suggest that office workers arrive four in an anto or standard vehicle parking space. We know this is not true, thus must assume from practical experience that the two tables were not meant to be cross referenced. There exist other methods to determine actual parking counts with arriving vehicles. We believe these include the use of either: a. past derived codes for similar uses; >b. other occupancy ratio tables relating specific use to vehicle arrival. (not life safety); c. actual demonstration of occupancy by use. We have provided the city with copies of adjacent jurisdiction's Land Use Code parking requirements. These have been derived through comparable codes in most /2_ cases. In contacting both Bellevue and Renton, both jurisdictions advised that the parking count is a point at which they would start. More specifically, the Planning Department of the City of Bellevue recently addressed this same issue for their new convention facility. They advised that part way into the process they determined that the only way to actually address parking needs was to develop a matrix of potential users, the duration of their visit and a probably count by vehicle of their arrival. We find that their parking requirements are solely based on this approach. We also find that the parking requirements for the Tacoma Dome, Kingdome and State Conection Center were arrived at in a similar process or approach. Thus, we believe the McLeod Exhibition Facility's parking needs or requirements should not rely on the UBC and should be reviewed in a manner similar to other special event facilities in the Puget Sound region. 44- -7,9-c.14•346 /7 I DATE: April 1, 1992 TO: File - McLeod Exhibition Center FROM: Don Miles SUBJECT; Parking We have reviewed Land Use Code Sections 18.56.050 "Required Number of Parking Spaces ", and understand the need to provide uniform control of off - street parking spaces on specific types of facility uses. The intent of the exhibition facility is to provide adequate, convenient and safe off -street parking. First then, let us look at the code and its intent. The code states that the amount of parking for an assembly facility is calculated by the occupancy divided by four. Because of its convenience, the city has used the Uniform Building Code (UBC) Table 33A as a basis for this calculation. We cannot find where the Land Use Code refers to the Uniform Building Code (UBC), and when referring to the specific code section suggesting control of the number of spaces tied to specific uses, neither do we see a reference to Table 33A of the Uniform Building Code. We understand that the only purpose of Table 33 -A is to provide safe exit from a building. In no way has the International Conference of Building Officials suggested this table serve as a basis for determining the number of persons arriving per vehicle or per trip. To illustrate the misappropriate use of this table, we can see that Table 33 -A (UBC) list an office building as having 10 occupants per 1,000 square feet. Table 4 would require this space be provided with 2.5 spaces for this 1,000 square feet. But as we can see between the two tables, one speaks only to people using a building for life safety issues and the other to a probable number of people who may have arrived in the vehicle which parked in one space. A comparable of this case using the tables might suggest that office workers arrive four in an anto or standard vehicle parking space. We know this is not true, thus must assume from practical experience that the two tables were not meant to be cross referenced. There exist other methods to determine actual parking counts with arriving vehicles. We believe these include the use of either: a. past derived codes for similar uses; b. other occupancy ratio tables relating specific use to vehicle arrival. (not life safety); c. actual demonstration of occupancy by use. We have provided the city with copies of adjacent jurisdiction's Land Use Code parking requirements. These have been derived through comparable codes in most y2 _ �..___...._... .............�.�.._. . cases. In contacting both Bellevue and Renton, both jurisdictions advised that the parking count is a point at which they would start. More specifically, the Planning Department of the City of Bellevue recently addressed this same issue for their new convention facility. They advised that part way into the process they determined that the only way to actually address parking needs was to develop la'matr of:..potential .users, the duration of their visit and a probably count by vehicle of their arrival. 'We find that their parking requirements are solely based on this approach. We also find that the parking requirements for the Tacoma Dome, Kingdome and State Correction Center were arrived at in a similar process or approach. Thus, we believe the McLeod Exhibition Facility's parking.needs:,or :requirements should: not. rely -on theUBC and-should:.be,reviewed in:a manner::similar.to other special 'event facilities in:the.Puget Sound.region. City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard • Tukwila, Washington 98188 John W. Rants, Mayor 30 March 1992 Don Miles Miles Consulting 15828 S.E. 24th Street Bellevue, Washington 98008 Subject: McLeod Exhibition Facility File No.: Pre 92 -010 Dear Don: I would like to summarize our conversation on 26 March regarding the parking requirement for the Exhibition Facility. The purpose of off- street parking is to provide for adequate, convenient, and safe off - street parking per Tukwila's Zoning Code Section 18.56.010. The Code specifies that a minimum number of parking spaces for "places of public assembly including auditoriums, exhibition halls, community clubs, community centers and theaters" is 1 space for every 4 persons based on occupancy load. It has been this Department's practice to calculate the occupancy load using the Uniform Building Code's formula for occupant loads in order to determine parking for these types of uses. The Schematic Design drawings of the Exhibition Facility dated 24 March 1993 show an occupant load of 17,067 which would require 4267 parking spaces. Therefore this Department currently considers the project to be deficient by approximately 2191 spaces. (TSI's parking analysis proposes a range of 2067 - 2639 to satisfy demand 90% of the time.) There are two options. First, the Department will consider reevaluating its practice of using the UBC method of figuring occupancy; however, I am concerned about the possibility of not finding an alternate method for determining occupancy. Your suggestions for an interpretation would be welcome. When we make an interpretation and if it is unsatisfactory from your standpoint, you may appeal within ten days to the Board of Adjustment. The second option is to amend the Zoning Code's Off - street parking Chapter for places of public assembly etc. This would Phone: (206) 433 -1800 • City Hall Fax (206) 433 -1833 require a Planning Commission public hearing and recommendation and City Council approval and ordinance. I am withholding accepting your application for Design Review until this matter is resolved and these additional items are submitted. * 2 sets of address labels for all occupants within 300 feet of the site's boundaries and an additional set of labels for - property owners. You may submit a label matrix with the addresses in lieu of the 2 sets. * A Burlington Northern easement for use of their property for storm drainage. * Easements which dedicate for the life of the project the off -site parking to the building's use. (All parking is located off- site.) * Lighting elevations and a luminare plan for the site and building elevations * Color and materials sample board. If I can be of any assistance, please call me. I look forward to hearing from you and seeing you on the 9th of April for the Development Review Committee Meeting. Yours truly, (/td “z-g?*44 Moira Carr Bradshaw Associate Planner cc: File Stuart McLeod City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard • Tukwila, Washington 98188 John W. Rants, Mayor April 22,•1992 Mr. Stuart McLeod McLeod Development Company 213 Lake Street South Kirkland, Washington 98033 Re: Proposed Wetland Mitigation for McLeod Exhibition Facility. Dear Stuart: I have reviewed the report - Selected Mitigation And Monitoring Program (for) Wetland And Upland Buffer Creation And Enhancements (3/17/92) prepared by Watershed Dynamics. The purpose of this letter is to approve the suggested mitigation measures included in the subject report. A compensation ratio of 1.5:1 will be used to replace four small Type 3 wetlands on the site. Additional study, during the growing season, supported a re- determination that a fifth on -site wetland lacked the hydrology necessary for the City's wetland method (FICWD 1989) criteria. Therefore, 0.69 acres of wetland will be filled and replaced by expanding the large on -site wetland with nearly 1.03 acres of new wetland area. In addition, there will be enhancement in the wetland and 50 -foot buffer zone. The emphasis of the mitigation will be to increase the overall functional value and habitat diversity of Wetland #12. The mitigation components that are considered significant to the existing wetland include increased water storage capacity, creation of new wetland habitats, and establishment of a dense, high quality buffer. Successful development of new wetland areas, as proposed, should easily exceed the structure and function of filled wetlands. Since the wetland buffer zone will be reduced from 100 to 50 feet, the enhancement /restoration features of the proposed mitigation plan should focus mostly on the establishment of a high quality buffer. The final mitigation plan should include a few more details such as construction sequence information, planting details and specifications, and a monitoring program that includes survival and cover criteria for emergent vegetation. The hydrologic monitoring schedule could be closely coordinated with vegetation monitoring after the first two years. Cost estimates associated with construction, planting, and monitoring will be appreciated for determining accurate bond amounts. Phone: (206) 433 -1800 • City Hall Fax (206) 433 -1833 Stuart 'McLeod April 20, 1992 Page 2 This letter is not intended as approval of the final wetland plan but hopefully will assist in preparation of the final details and mapping. If there are questions regarding this letter or project, please feel free to contact me at 431 - 3662.' Sincerely, C. Gary &Schulz Urban Environmentalist cc: Rick Beeler, Director - Community Development Moira Bradshaw, Associate Planner = Community Development Phil Fraser, Senior Engineer - Public Works Don Miles, Miles Consulting Tom Demming, Watershed Dynamics EXHIBITION FACILITY Conceptual Parking Demand Analysis March 22, 1992 Introduction This document summarizes 6 conceptu arking Management Plan for the Exhibition Facility (EF). Th1inc udes a description of the Exhibition Facility and the events it is proposed to, host; a descnption of the parking demand; a summary of the parking supply; an analysis of the ability of the site to serve the parking demand; a description of the plan to address special demand conditions; and a conceptual description of access and egress patterns proposed for event day parking conditions. Facility Description and Event Characteristics The Exhibition Facility is a project specifically designed to serve trade and consumer shows and selected group functions like professional qualifications testing, high school graduations and small religious training functions. This facility is not a concert hall or performing arts center nor is it a convention center or sporting event facility. This facility has been designed to serve trade and consumer show industry that is unable to obtain long term contracts and consistent dates because other tenants have priority in scheduling. These events are distinguished from other special events by the character of the traffic volumes and parking demand. Most special events have a specific event start time and a specific ending time. This results in high volume, short term, and high intensity arrival and departure traffic flows and accumulation of parking demand. Such events require a high level of traffic control and parking control to serve the surges in traffic and parking demand. The events hosted at the exhibition facility, in sharp contrast, are characterized by an low volume ebb and flow of volume with slow accumulation of parking in the mid afternoon and early evening. These patterns are similar to conditions at a retail shopping center on a average Weekend day. While some traffic control will be required, much of the direction is provided by special signing instead of traffic officers at perimeter intersections. Parking Requirements and Typical Codes (61 :-.-•';'‘c //cc:7 it r 17' The parking required for special event facilities vary depending on the intended uses. The City of Tukwila has developed a criteria based on the Uniform Building 13Ci° Code requirement for building exit capacity. This requirement calls for 16.7 parking stalls per 1000 square feet of assembly facility floor area. This criteria is substantially higher thanthe parking requirement for similar facilities in other cities in the Puget Sound Region. Most other cities use a requirement of 10 parking spaces per 1000'square feet of floor area or one parking stall per 4 fixed seats. Considering this is not a concert or spectator type facility the area criteria should be applied. TSI Transportation Solutions Inc. Exhibition Facility Page 2 March 22, x:12 Forecasted Parking Demand Parking demand for the types of events Ito be hosted by this facility are not found in generally available transportation and,parking references. This is because the EF is a unique land use and peak demands 'and associated needs for other special event facilities like stadiums and convention centers are typically dictated by larger sporting events. Accordingly, parking demands for the EF were based on the type and character of events that can be hosted at this facility. This was based on a calendar of events produced as part of a market analysis prepared by 43 & Associates, a fine specializing in event facility management. Information regarding projected attendance in this analysis was combined with parking and traffic data assembled by Transportation Solutions, Inc. over the past 15 years while planning and managing operations for special events`and event facilities through out the Northwest and Alaska. This analysis is presented in Appendix A of this plan. For the purpose of this analysis, the parking demand that is represented by the 90th percentile parking demand is used as the design level for the parking demand:— This suggests that only 10 percent of the event days would _experience a parking demand that exceeds the parking supply. Based on th' event rofile'and the parking demand characteristics associated with these events, a 90th percentile /,: parking demand is 2044 cars. It is also important to recognize the peak p&k_ ing_ demand for larger events occur on weekend days and weekday evenings. A common basis for design of transportation and parking improvements is the 85th percentile event (establishing of speed limits, etc.) so using a 90 percent critena is a conservative criteria. A local example of a use that typically exceeds their parking supply is the South Center Regional Shopping Center which experiences peak parking demands that substantially exceed the required parking for a retail use, particularly during the Holiday shopping season. Parking Supply The site is designed with 1539 parking spaces on site - 796 parking spaces north of the site and 743 parking spaces south of the site. The north and south parking lots will be accessed off S. 158th Street and The extension to Strander Boulevard respectively. This demand can accommodate up to 90 percent of the event days , associated with this facility. Nonetheless, there is still a desire to serve ; =. In addition, the applicant is in negotiations with Puget Power and Light Company for the long term lease for an additional437 parking spaces - 195 parking spaces and 242 parking spaces north and south of the building and parallel to the on -site parking but separated by the railroad. This parking is accessed off the same roads serving the on -site parking. Further, the applicant is attempting to secure a purchase option on at least 6 acres of property immediately north of 1 -405. for ,use as overflow parking. This property is connected directly to the north on-site lot via the unutilized property under I -405 and Grady Way. An existing bridge structure under the railroad permits the north on -site parking lot and this area to be connected. TS! Transportation Solutions Inc. Exhibition Facility Page 3 ,.,: March 22, On peak days, the on -site and off -site parking lots will be served by jitney shuttle for the convenience of patrons choosingnotto walk. This type jitney service has been used successfully by other special'events for these types events held elsewhere in the Puget Sound Region. The Applicant will either operate this service themselves or will contract with one'of several local bus operators for this service. 2039 c:. Accommodation of Parking Demand;'and Adequacy of Parking r �Tii The on -site parking alone will accommodate 1539 cars. This will serve about 230 of the 260 days when there is event activityat this facility. This represents the 88 percentile level. TSI believes there will'need to be additional parking provided to meet the practical and operational needs;'of .the project. Based on the analysis outlined above, there will be a need foran additional 500 parking spaces to serve 90 percent of the event days hosted by this-facility. TSI suggests this demand be accommodated in using one or more of the following ri approaches: o Develop parking on Puget Power andLight Company power line right of way. This would provide a minimum of 437 parking spaces. o Develop parking on the propertynder the I -405 and Grady Way overcrossings and the property north Of I -405 which could add a minimum of 950 parking stalls. o Develop a cooperative parking agreement with the adjacent property owner(s) for evening and weekend parking. Depending on the interest of different property owners, this could add 50 to 2000 parking spaces. '\,o Construct structured parking on the property immediately north and/or south of the site. Because discussions with various property; owners are at different stages of development, it is not reasonable to specify the approach that should be used at this time. One criteria that should be satisfied however is that the entrance to the parking area be within 1000 feet of the :building or be served by a on -site shuttle ,jitney that is no more than 5 minutes travel`; time away from the site Examples showing how different combinations of these alternatives can combine with the parking provided on the site to serve the 90 percentile parking demand are illustrated below: TSI Transportation Solutions Inc. Exhibition Facility Page 4 Option 1 On -site Parking 1539 Puget Power 437 North of I -405 0 March 22, Parking Supply Options 2 1539-; 0 3 4 5 1539 1539 1539 0 0 950 0 0 0 Reciprocal Parking Agreemt 100 0 550 0 0 Structured Parking 0 0 0 600 1100 Total Parking 2076 2485. 2089 2139 2639 Thus, a variety of options can be used to respond to the parking demand associated with the proposed uses of the building on the site. One or some combination of these options should be in place at the time of building opening. Special Parking Demand Conditions As noted above, there will be times when the parking provided by the above outlined options will not serve the maximum event day demands (those event days with a parking demand over the 90th percentile level). In those circumstances, the applicant will need to provide additional; methods for persons to access the site. Several of the methods that have worked successfully for other facilities in other locations include: o Short term parking in truck loading areas and parking areas of nearby businesses. This option uses the small parking and truck loading areas of adjacent businesses during the evening and on weekends when parking for employees, customers and service vehicles are minimal. This is currently employed on peak days at the Longacres Race Track. A preliminary review of parking in the area indicates there could be over 300 parking spaces available under this option. o Remote park and shuttle for employees and exhibitors. This approach has been used for many years by consumer show operators at the Kingdome, and Seattle Center. This could free up 100 to 400 parking stalls. o Charter Van/Bus group tours. Such bus charters work well for predefined groups attending special interest events such as garden clubs attending a home and garden show; a business group combining a several visits and restaurant meals in an organized tour, or a church group attending a regional training session. o Off -site Shuttle Bus from Remote,Park- and -Ride Lots. This type shuttle operation has been successful for shows like the Garden show at the Washington State Convention Center (900 on -site parking spaces). Metro Transit has a policy of cooperating by making their parking lots available at i31 Transportation Solutions Inc. Exhibition Facility Page 5 March 22, iA2 times that do not conflict with commuter transportation`and parking demands. o Discounted or free parking for carpools of more than four people. This is currently being used at the Kingdome although the program is not well publicized. Conceptual Access Approach °'...r Primary access to the site will be provided via 158th Street and the extension of Strander Boulevard to the north and south on -site parking lots respectively. The parking lots will be loaded starting closest to the building and progressing away from the building so passengers can get :out .of their cars and walk down the parking aisles along marked pedestrian paths to the building entrances. This will minimize the majority of pedestrian automobile conflicts. As the parking lots become full, vehicles will be intercepted near the entrance to the site and directed into the parking areas along the Puget Power right of way and to other parking areas along the perimeter of the project site. When there is an imbalance in the parking demand in the north or soSth parking lot the overflow will be directed to the unfilled parking lot along the east side of the building. Truck and service access will use both the 158th and the Strander Boulevard extension and proceed to the truck loading areas on the north and south end of the east side of the building. Almost all truck movements will occur during non -event hours to minimize conflict with attendee access and egress. Summary and Conclusions Based on the above outlined analysis TSI believes the following conclusions can be drawn to guide the deliberations of the Tukwila Architectural Review Committee. o The City of Tukwila parking requirement for assembly facilities (16.7 parking spaces for each 1000 square feet of floor area) is not consistent with generally accepted standards of other jurisdictions in the Puget Sound Region (10 parking spaces per 1000 square feet of floor area) o Because the types of uses, and in turn, the parking demand associated with assembly type buildings can vary widely, it. is much more reasonable that actual parking demand be used to determine the appropriate parking supply. The parking demand that should be used for design of this facility is 2044 parking stalls. This represents the 90th highest event day condition - a level typically used for design of other land uses that experience short term peak parking demands (e.g. South Center. Regional Shopping Center). o The parking supply of 2150 spaces (an additional 5 percent to allow for turnover of the spaces within the parking lots) should be in place prior to issuance of a final building occupancy permit. This supply can be provided using a combination of the on -site parking and one or more options including use of Puget Power and-Light Company power line right of way; TSI Transportation Solutions Inc. ......... acquisition of additional land; reCItprocal parking use agreements with nearby businesses; or structured ,parking on the site. is o In those instances where the par iiimdemand exceeds the 90th percentile condition, the spillover demand canbe accommodated by a vanety of shuttle and charter van/bus and arkng management measures. TSI Transportation Solutions Inc. _ TUKWILA TRAFFIC Event Type: EXHIBITION VOLUME _ - CENTER [-- _.._..._._.___... AND PARKING TABLE - - C1 = Consumer Show >10,000 C2 = Consumer Show > 5,000 C3 = Consumer Show < 5,000 1- - - - - -L 1--- _1: T1 = Trade Show >10 000 Max -- Max Dail Max Daily Max Daily -_._ . [.._. Daily Attendance __...._._ _.__L___.....--- .._I_..-- Sorted b Calendar Attendance Attendance Attendance _.. - _ _.... -__._. Date __....._- ..._.- __ ._.. _ ..__ -- _- . _ - -, - -. __ ._... TUKWILA_ TRAFFIC Event Type: _ . . _ _ EXHIBITION VOLUME .__ _ . CENTER _L_.....--- I-- ......__ AND PARKING TABLE C1 = Consumer Show >10,000 Max C2 = Consumer Show > 5,000 Max C3 = Consumer Show < 5,000 Max- 1-- --1 [ - - ---1 T1 = Trade Show >10,000 Max Daily ....._.- -- Daily Daily ---- 1 - - - - Sorted by Calendar Attendance Attendance C_ -_ .--- — _ - - -- -- _— -_ Date _ _._ _. - - -- Daily Attendance - 1____C_ Attendance - -- T2 = Trade Show > 5 000 Max Daily Attendance T2 = Trade Show > 5,000 Max Daily Attendance _ T3 = Trade Show < 5,000 Max Attendance T3 = Trade Show 5,000 Max Daily Attendance EVENT CRITERIA ATTENDANCE _Daily CRITERIA __.__._._ _ _.._.... _.__ .__.....___ EVE _ ___ ..._...._....._ 'T CRITERIA _. _- _. _< VOLUME CRITERIA PARKING CRITERIA Event Peak Hour PM Peak Hour I Evnt PM Pk Hr of PkDem Highest -- Day of Event Event Day_ Daily Pk Hr % Daily Pk Hr Pk Hr % Daily Pk Hr Day of Event Event Day % by Mode Daily PkHr PkHr Parking ( %Dly_ Hourly_ Date Week Day_ Type Type Attend End @ Attend Attend End 0 Attend Attend Date Week Day Type Type Auto Bus Pad ACO Vol Vol Vol Demand Vold Accum _- 1/1/91 3 1 C1 MI 325 10:00 20 65 17:00 10 33 1 1/91 3 1 C1 MI 97 2 1 2 158 32 16 19:00 36 57 1/2/91 4 2 C1 E 3650 14:00 16 584 17:00 7 256 1 1 4 2 C1 E 97 2 1 2.4 1475 236 103 19:00 36 531 1/3/91 5 3 C1 E 5000 14:00 17 850 17:00 7 350 1 /91 5 3 C1 E 97 2 1 2.4 2021 344 141 19:00 36 728 1/4191 6 4 C1 E 6250 14:00 12 750 17:00 6 375 1 4/91 6 4 C1 E 97 2 1 2.4 2526 303 152 20:00 38 960 1/5/91 7 5 C1 E 17000 14:00 17 2890 17:00 9 1530 1)5i91 7 5 C1 E 97 2 1 2.7 6107 1038 550 15:00 49 2993 1/6/91 1 6 C1 E 9000 14 :00 20 1800 17:00 1 90 16/91 1 6 C1 E 97 2 1 2.7 3233 647 32 15:00 77 2490 1/7/91 2 7 C1 MO 900 10:00 20 180 17:00 10 90 1/7191 2 7 C1 MO 97 2 1 2 437 87 44 19:00 36 157 1/8/91 3 1 C1 MI 625 10:00 20 125 17:00 10 63 1/8/91 3 1 C1 MI 97 2 1 2 303 61 30 19:00 36 109 1/9/91 4 2 C1 MI 625 10:00 20 125 17:00 10 63 19/91 4 2 C1 MI 97 2 1 2.4 253 51 25 19:00 36 91 1/10/91 _ 5 3 _ C1 _ _E 7200 14 ^00 1s._.._...._1152 17:00 ` 504..._..._.1/110 /91 5 3 E 97 2 1 2.4 2910 466 204 19:00 36 1048 1/11/91 6 4 C1 E 9200 14:00 12 1104 17:00 6 552 1/111/91 6 4 _C1 C1 E 97 2 1 2.4 3718 446 223 20:00 38 1413 1/12/91 7 5 C1 E 20500 14:00 17 3485 17:00 9..___..._...1845 1/112/91 ,._ 7 5 C1 E 97 2 1 2.7 7365 1252 663 15:00 49 3609 — 1/13/91 _ 1 6 _C1 _ — E 15800 14:00 20 3160 1700 _...._. 5 790 _1/113/91 1 6 01 E 97 2 1 2.7 5676 1135 284 15:00 49 2781 1/14/91 2 7 C1 E 9000 14:00 17 1530 17:00 7 630 1/ 4/91 2 7 01 E 97 2 1 2.4 3638 618 255 19:00 36 1310 1/15/91 3 8 01 E 6750 14:00 17 1147.5 17:00 7 473 1/ 5/91 3 8 01 E 97 2 1 2.4 2728 464 191 19:00 36 982 1/16/91 4 9 01 E 7500 14:00 17 1275 17:00 7 525 1/ 6/91 4 9 01 E 97 2 1 2.4 3031 515 212 19:00 36 1091 1/17/91 5 10 01 E 7500 14:00 17 1275 17:00 7 525 1/ 7/91 5 10 01 E 97 2 1 2.4 3031 515 212 19:00 36 1091 1/18/91 6 11 01 E 8750 14:00 12 1050 17:00 6 525 1/ 8/91 6 11 01 E 97 2 1 2.4 3536 424 212 20:00 38 1344 1/19/91 7 12 01 E 17500 14:00 17 2975 17:00 9 1575 1/ 9/91 7 12 01 E 97 2 1 2.7 6287 1069 566 15:00 49 3081 1/20/91 1 13 01 E 10750 14:00 20 2150 17:00 5 538 1 .0/91 1 13 01 E 97 2 1 2.7 3862 772 193 15:00 77 2974 1/21/91 2 14 01 MO 1075 10:00 20 215 17:00 10 108 1 .1/91 2 14 01 MO 97 2 1 2 521 104 52 19:00 36 188 1/22/91 3 15 01 MO 1075 10:00 20 215 17:00 10 108 1 .2/91 3 15 01 MO 97 2 1 2 521 104 52 19:00 36 188 1/28/91 2 1 T2 MI 300 10:00 20 60 17:00 10 30 1 .8/91 2 1 T2 MI 96 2 2 1.7 169 34 17 19:00 36 61 1/29/91 3 2 T2 MI 300 10:00 20 60 17:00 10 30 1 - •/91 3 2 T2 MI 96 2 2 1.7 169 34 17 19:00 36 61 1/30/91 4 3 T2 MI 300 10:00 20 60 17:00 10 30 1/ ./91 4 3 T2 MI 96 2 2 1.7 169 34 17 19:00 36 61 1/31/91 5 4 T2 E 3000 14:00 15 450 17:00 10 300 1/ 1/91 5 4 T2 E 96 2 2 1.7 1694 254 169 19:00 36 610 2/1/91 6 5 T2 E 4000 14:00 15 600 17:00 10 400 2/1/91 6 5 T2 E 96 2 2 1.7 2259 339 226 20:00 38 858 2/2/91 7 6 T2 E 6000 14:00 15 900 17:00 5 300 1 7 6 T2 E 96 2 2 1.7 3388 508 169 15:00 49 1660 Pag 1 2/3/91 ---2/4i9-1 _ 2/7/91 2/851 ----i4/3-i •-_--i/bi6i 2/10/91 •iiiiiii 2/13/91 --_ 2/14i91 iii-679-1- 2/17/91 2/1891 1 2 7 lipillililiii:illliiiiIIIIIII!Iii11111111,11! pp plpic2,152,pr.717.7[17.0_7!..7.17.7. I 1 1 I 1 I :(-)1(-)1(-1101UPIP.7H:0111,7110.,0ii0 1 --.-1-51101:1C.-.)1i0.--■;0.-010-i10,-1:0N1t0oji1:0nn10ov1t,51R,3,R,5 , • t :.:111 . . E MO MO MI E E MO MI MI MI E E E E E E MO MO MI E E E MO MI MI MI MI E E E E E E E E MO MI MI E E E E E 4700 470 470 100 1000 1000 100 625 625 625 6250 7500 16000 30000 22000 11000 1100 1100 275 2750 4250 3000 300 2100 2100 2100 2100 21000 21500 9250 8000 10750 14750 21000 16250 9250 8250 825 175 175 1750 2500 3000 6500 3750 14:00 10:00 10:00 10:00 14:00 14:00 22:00 10:00 10:00 10:00 14:00 14:00 14:00 14:00 14:00 14:00 10:00 10:00 10:00 14:00 14:00 14:00 22:00 10:00 10:00 10:00 10:00 14:00 14:00 14:00 14:00 14:00 14:00 14:00 14:00 14:00 14:00 10:00 10:00 10:00 14:00 14:00 14:00 14:00 14:00 15 20 20 20 15 15 20 20 20 20 16 17 12 10 12 17 20 20 20 12 17 30 20 20 20 20 20 17 20 17 17 17 17 12 17 20 17 20 20 20 16 17 12 17 30 705 94 94 20 150 150 20 125 125 125 1000 1275 1920 3000 2640 1870 220 220 55 330 722.5 900 60 420 420 420 420 3570 4300 1572.5 1360 1827.5 2507.5 2520 2762.5 1850 1402.5 165 35 35 280 425 360 1105 17:00 17:00 17:00 17:00 17:00 17:00 17:00 17:00 17:00 17:00 17:00 17:00 17:00 17:00 17:00 17:00 1700 17:00 17:00 17:00 17:00 17:00 17:00 17:00 17:00 17:00 17:00 17:00 17:00 17:00 17:00 17:00 17:00 17:00 17:00 17:00 17:00 17:00 17:00 17:00 17:00 17:00 17:00 17:00 17:00 5 10 10 10 10 5 10 10 10 10 7 7 6 9 5 7 10 10 10 6 9 2 10 10 10 10 10 9 5 7 7 7 7 6 9 5 7 10 10 10 7 7 6 9 1 235 47 2/3/91 2/4/91 2/5/91 217/91 2/8/91 2/9/91 2/9/91 2/10/91 2/11/91 2/12/91 2/13/91 2/14/91 2/15/91 2/16/91 2/17191 2/18/91 2/19/91 2/20/91 2/22/91 2/22/91 2/23/91 2/24/91 2/24/91 2/26/91 2/27/91 2/28/91 3/1/91 3/2/91 3/3/91 3/4/91 3/5/91 3/6/91 3/7/91 3/8/91 3/9/91 3/10/91 3/11/91 3/12/91 3/18/91 3/19/91 3/20/91 3/21/91 3/22/91 3/23/91 3/24/91 1 2 3 7 8 9 T2 T2 T2 E MO MO 96 96 96 2 2 2 2 2 2 1.7 1.7 1.7 2654 265 265 398 53 53 133 27 27 15:00 19:00 19:00 77 36 36 2044 96 96 3 _ -5 6 7 7 1 2 3--- 4 5 _ 6 7 1 2 3 4 6 6 7 1 1 13 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 _.__-.. 6 7 1 2 3 2 3 .__ 4 5 6 7 1 _ 9__ -i 3 1 2 6 4 _ 5 6 "i 8 9 10 11 1 1 2 3 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 __--10 11 12 _--13 14 15 1 2 3 4 1 51 _ 6 47 10 100 50 10 63 63 63 438 525 960 2700 1100 770 110 110 28 165 383 60 30 210 210 210 210 1890 1075 648 560 753 1033 1260 1463 463 578 83 18 18 123 175 180 585 38 5 6 7 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 6 6 7 1 1 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1 1 2 3 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 T3 T3 T3 T3 01 01 C1 C1 C1 C1 C1 01 C1 C1 C1 C3 03 C3 C3 C3 C1 C1 01 C1 C1 C1 C1 C1 C1 01 01 01 C1 01 C1 02 C2 02 02 MI E E MO MI MI MI E E E E E E MO MO 96 98 98 98 97 97 97 97 97 92 85 85 92 97 97 99 99 99 99 99 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 97 97 97 97 97 97 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.7 1.4 1.4 1.4 2 2 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.7 3.2 3.1 3 2 2 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 2 2 2 2 2.7 2.7 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.7 2.7 2.4 2 2 2 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.7 2.7 56 700 700 70 303 303 253 2526 3031 5452 7969 6032 3373 534 534 130 1296 2004 1414 141 935 935 935 935 6922 7087 3430 2967 3986 5470 7788 5356 3049 3059 367 85 85 707 1010 11 105 105 14 61 61 51 404 515 654 797 724 573 107 107 26 156 341 424 28 187 187 187 187 1177 1417 583 504 678 930 935 911 610 520 73 17 17 113 172 146 397 404 6 70 35 7 30 30 25 177 212 327 717 302 236 53 53 13 78 180 28 14 93 93 93 93 623 354 240 208 279 383 467 482 152 214 37 8 8 50 71 73 19:00 36 20 20:00 15:00 15:00 15:00 19:00 19:00 19:00 19:00 20:00 15:00 15:00 19:00 19:00 19:00 20:00 20:00 15:00 15:00 15:00 19:00 19:00 19:00 20:00 15:00 15:00 19:00 19:00 19:00 19:00 20:00 15:00 15:00 19:00 19:00 19:00 19:00 19:00 19:00 20:00 38 49 49 77 36 266 343 34 233 109 91 909 1091 2072 3905 4645 1214 192 192 49 493 982 1089 109 336 336 336 355 3392 3473 1235 1068 1435 1969 2959 2625 2348 1101 132 31 31 255- 364 461 36 36 36 38 49 77 36 36 36 2i19/91 2/20/91 _ _ __ 2/22/91 2/22/91 _-j;1 -272-4/9 i "2/24/91 --- i261 ---027/671 2/28/91 _ 3/1/91 3/3/91 _---__274191 3/561 3/6/9.1 1--3/751 376161 MI E E E MO MI MI MI MI E E E E E E E E E E MO MI MI E E E E E 38 38 49 77 77 36 36 36 38 49 49 36 36 36 36 38 49 77 36 36 36 36 36 36 38 3/9/91 3/10/91 3i11/91 _ 3/12/91 3/18/91 3/19/91 3120iii 3/2151 - - 3722T91 iii6/31 2/24/91 6 7 1 02 1213 2335 1347 02 C2 210 13 15:00 15:00 49 1144 1037 1125 97 77 Page 2 3/25/91 2 8 C2 MO MI E E E E E MO MO 375 150 1500 2000 2000 2500 2000 200 200 10:00 10:00 14:00 14:00 14:00 14:00 10:00 10:00 20 20 75 30 240 240 425 600 40 40 17:00 17:00 17:00 17:66 17:00 17:00 17:00 17:00 17:00 10 10 7 7 6 9 1 10 10 38 15 105 3/25/91 3/26/91 3/27/91 3/28/91 3/29/91 3/30/91 3/31/91 4/1/91 4/2/91 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 8 [ [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 : ... 1 :;::!1 i ! i : : ! : ■ i ! i i 1!■!iiiIII NIc,,c9Tpoico!pyoic9icf.p.t.9:e),,o);c•) cliclicnjoltnrc91colco olimic9.clIN N:cmiNicmicmININ NigviNINicNico,s9loicl,c91r) 0,01.0,0!0:010!0,0:1—!i—i--0--;F- 1-1— 0 0!0,c.):C.),1— F-il—i1-11—io 0i0:010;00 0 010101010101010101010 'iii'. 1 : ! ; Ilii!illii : ! i , MO E E E E E MO MO 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2.3 2.3 182 73 633 843 36 15 101 143 18 7 44 59 19:00 36 36 65 26 3/26/91 -3/27/91 3/28/9-1 3-i2-979-1 3/3Oie1 3/31/91 ._ . 4/1/91 3 4 1 C3 19:00 . 19:00 19:00 2 3---_ 4 . _ . 5 6 7 8 C3 _ C,3 C3 C3 C3 C3 C3 16 17 12 17 30 20 20 36 36 228 304 __-- 5 6 i--- 1 2 3 120 225 20 20 20 2.3 2.7 2.7 2 2 843 898 719 97 97 101 153 216 19 19 51 81 7 10 10 20:00 15:00 15:00 38 49 77 36 36 321 440 553 35 35 19:00 19:00 4/2/91 ._.. . ____ -4/5/91 6 1 T3 MI 200 10:00 20 40 17:00 10 20 4/5/91 6 1 [ MI 98 1 1 1.4 140 28 14 20:00 38 53 _ . 4/6/91 7 2 T3 MI 200 10:00 20 40 17:00 10 20 4/6/91 7 2 MI 98 1 1 1.4 140 28 14 15:00 49 69 4/7/91 1 3 T3 E 2000 14:00 15 300 17:00 5 100 4/7/91 1 3 E 98 1 1 1.4 1400 210 70 15:00 49 686 I- 4/8/91 2 4 T3 E 2250 14:00 15 337.5 17:00 10 225 4/8/91 2 4 E 98 1 1 1.4 1575 236 158 19:00 36 567 4/9/91 3 5 T3 E 2250 14[.00 15 337.5 17..00 10 225 4/9/91 3 5 E 98 1 1 14 1575 236 158 1900 36 567 : 4/10/91 4 6 T3 E 2000 14:00 15 300 17:00 10 200 4/10/91 4 6 E 98 1 1 1.4 1400 210 140 19:00 36 504 4 t-i-1791 5 7 T3 MO 200 10:00 20 40 17:00 10 20 4/11/91 5 7 MO 98 1 1 2 98 20 10 19:00 36 35 Adi/91 5 1 C3 MI 75 10:00 20 15 17:00 10 8 4/11/91 5 1 MI 99 0 1 2 37 7 4 19:00 36 13 . 4-Iiii61- _ _ - 6 _ 2 --c3 E 750 14:00 12 90 17:00 6 45 4/12/91 6 2 E 99 0 1 1.9 391 47 23 20:00 38 149 _ 4/13/91 7 3 C3 E 1750 14:00 17 297.5 17:00 9 158 4/13/91 7 3 E 99 0 1 1.9 912 155 82 15:00 49 447 4/14/91 1 4 C3 E 1300 14:00 30 390 17:00 2 26 4/14/91 1 4 E 99 0 1 1.9 677 203 14 15:00 77 522 4i14/91 1 4 C3 MO 130 22:00 20 26 17:00 10 13 4/14/91 1 4 MO 99 0 1 2 64 13 6 15:00 77 50 4/15/91 2 1 T3 MI 75 10:00 20 15 17:00 10 8 4/15/91 2 1 MI 98 1 1 2 37 7 4 19:00 36 13 4/16/91 3 2 T3 E 750 14:00 15 112.5 17:00 10 75 4/16/91 3 2 E 98 1 1 1.5 490 74 49 19:00 36 - 176- 4i17i61 4 3 E 1250 14:00 15 187.5 17:00 10 125 4/17/91 4 3 E 98 1 1 1.5 817 123 82 19:00 36 294 4/18/91 5 4 T3 E 1000 14:00 15 150 17:00 10 100 4/18/91 5 4 E 98 1 1 1.5 653 98 65 19:00 36 235 _ 4/18/91 5 4 T3 MO 100 22:00 20 20 17:00 10 10 4/18/91 5 4 MO 98 1 1 2 49 10 5 19:00 36 18 _ 4/19/91 6 1 C2 MI 200 10:00 20 40 17:00 10 20 4/19/91 6 1 MI 97 2 1 2 97 19 10 20:00 38 37 4/19/91 6 1 C2 E 2000 14:00 12 240 17:00 6 120 4/19/91 6 1 E 97 2 1 2.7 719 86 43 20:00 38 273 _ 4/20/91 7 2 C2 E 5250 14:00 17 892.5 17:00 9 473 4/20/91 7 2 E 97 2 1 2.7 1886 321 170 15:00 49 924 4/21/91 1 3 C2 E 2750 14:00 30 825 17:00 2 55 4/21/91 1 3 E 97 2 1 2.7 988 296 20 15:00 77 761 4/21/91 1 3 C2 MO 275 22:00 20 55 17:00 10 28 4/21/91 1 3 MO 97 2 1 2 133 27 13 15:00 77 103 4/22/91 2 1 C2 MI 225 10:00 20 45 17:00 10 23 4/22/91 2 1 MI 97 2 1 2 109 22 11 19:00 36 39 4/23/91 3 2 C2 MI 225 10:00 20 45 17:00 10 23 4/23/91 3 2 MI 97 2 1 2 109 22 11 19:00 36 39 • 4/24/91 4 3 C2 E 2250 14:00 16 360 17:00 7 158 4/24/91 4 3 E 97 2 1 2.7 808 129 57 19:00 36 291 4/25/91 5 4 C2 E 2500 14:00 17 425 17:00 7 175 4/25/91 5 4 E 97 2 1 2.7 898 153 63 19:00 36 323 4/26/91 6 5 C2 E 3500 14:00 12 420 17:00 6 210 4/26/91 6 5 E 97 2 1 2.7 1257 151 75 20:00 38 478 4/27/91 7 6 C2 E 5250 14:00 17 892.5 17:00 9 473 4/27/91 7 6 E 97 2 1 2.7 1886 321 170 15:00 49 924 4/28/91 1 7 C2 E 3500 14:00 30 1050 17:00 1 35 4/28/91 1 7 E 97 2 1 2.7 1257 377 13 15:00 77 968 4/29/91 2 8 C2 MO 350 10:00 20 70 17:00 10 35 4/29/91 2 8 MO 97 2 1 2 170 34 17 19:00 36 61____ 5/1/91 4 1 C3 MI 50 10:00 20 10 17:00 10 5 5/1/91 4 1 MI 99 0 1 2 25 5 2 19:00 _ 36 9 5/2/91 5 2 C3 MI 50 10:00 20 10 17:00 10 5 5/2191 5 2 MI 99 0 1 2 25 5 2 19:00 36 9 5/3/91 6 7 3 4 C3 E E 500 14:00 14:00 12 60 ---176--- 17:00 17:66 6 9 30 5/3/91 5i4191 -__ 6 7 3 E E 99 99 0 0 1 1 2 2 248 495 30 64 15 45 20:00 15:00 38 94 -_- 5/4/91 C31 49 243 5/5761 1 5 03 E 1000 14:00 _---_-ff 30 300 17:66 2 5/5191 -_-_- 1 5 E 99 0 1 2 495 149 10 15:00 77 381 676i91 1 5 03 MO 100 22:00 20 20 17:00 10 10 6i5191 1 5 MO 99 0 1 50 5 15:00 77 i 38 Page 3 5/1/91 6/2/91 4 5 6 7_ 1 2 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 C3 C3 C3 C3 03 C3 T3 T3 MI E E E E MO MI • E • 200 2000 3500 2500 2000 200 250 2500 10:00 14:00 14:00 14:00 14:00 10:00 10:00 14:00 20 16 12 17 30 20 20 15 40 320 420 425 600 40 50 375 17:00 17:00 10 7 6 9 1 10 10 10 20 140 210 225 20 20 25 250 5/1/91 5/2/91 5/3/91 5/4/91 5/5/91 5/6/91 5/9/91 5/10/91 4 5 6 7 1 2 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 C3 C3 C3 C3 C3 C3 T3 T3 MI E E E E MO MI E 99 99 99 99 99 99 96 96 |/ | | ! i � : �' 1 | i | | ! !! |i | !| ! i [||�\�i�'�| |p/o| �o|o|o|o|o!p!�!w|w/w!mio�oo.o|�'�.w'w.w:w/w|w/w|w|wio|o|o/o'�|-�-i-!-|-}-| | | � |-| � | 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 2 2 1.6 99 20 198 260 263 371 20 24 225 10 87 130 139 12 10 12 150 19:00 19:00 20:00 15:00 15:00 36 36 36 446 1238 2166 1547 5/3/91 17:00 17:00 17:00 17:00 17:00 17:00 38 49 77 36 36 38 823 758 953 36 43 570 5/4/91 676761 1238 99 120 1500 5/6/9-1 17616.1 _ 5/10/91 -ii -1-191 19:00 19:00 20:00 ____ 7 3 T3 E 3000 14:00 15 450 17:00 5 150 5/11/91 7 3 T3 E 96 2 1.6 1800 270 90 15:00 49 882 5/1 2191 1 4 T3 E 2000 14:00 15 300 17:00 5 100 5/12/91 1 4 T3 E 96 2 1.6 1200 180 60 15:00 77 924 6712/61 1 4 T3 MO 200 22:00 20 40 17:00 10 20 5/12/91 1 4 T3 MO 96 2 2 96 19 10 15:00 77 74 6/4/9 i _ _ _ 3 . _ __ . - - 1 S MI 300 10:00 20 60 17:00 10 30 6/4/91 3 1 S MI 100 0 2 150 30 15 19:00 36 54 _..3 1 S E 3000 19:00 80 2400 17:00 5 150 6/4/91 3 1 S E 100 0 3.1 968 774 48 19:00 36 348 2 S E 3000 19:00 80 2400 17:00 5 150 6/5/91 4 2 S E 100 0 3.1 968 774 48 19:00 36 348 61676-1 -6/7/91 6 3 S E 3000 19:00 80 2400 17:00 5 150 6/6/91 5 3 S E 100 0 3.1 968 774 48 19:00 36 348 __ 6 4 S E 3000 19:00 80 2400 17:00 5 150 6/7/91 6 4 S E 100 0 3.1 968 774 48 20:00 38 368 _ 61 6 4 S MO 300 22:00 20 60 17:00 10 30 6/7/91 6 4 S MO 100 0 2 150 30 15 20:00 38 57 6/8/91 7 1 03 MI 50 10:00 20 10 17:00 9 5 6/8/91 7 1 C3 MI 97 1 2 24 5 2 15:00 49 12 _ 6/8/91 7 1 C3 E 2000 14:00 17 340 17:00 9 180 6/8/91 7 1 C3 E 97 1 2.8 693 118 62 15:00 49 340 6/9/91 1 2 C3 E 1500 14:00 17 255 17:00 5 75 6/9/91 1 2 C3 E 97 1 2.8 520 88 26 15:00 77 400 6/10/61 2 3 C3 E 500 14:00 20 100 17:00 7 35 6/10/91 2 3 C3 E 97 1 2.4 202 40 14 19:00 36 73 6710/91 -6714/91 2 3 C3 MO 100 22:00 20 20 17:00 7 7 6/10/91 2 3 C3 MO 97 1 2 49 10 3 19:00 36 17 6 1 03 MI 50 10:00 20 10 17:00 7 4 6/14/91 6 1 C3 MI 97 1 2 24 5 2 20:00 38 9 6/14/91 6 1 C3 E 200 14:00 15 30 17:00 7 14 6/14/91 6 1 C3 E 97 1 2.2 88 13 6 20:00 38 34 6/15/91 -6716/91 7 2 C3 E 500 14:00 17 85 17:00 10 50 6/15/91 7 2 C3 E 97 1 2.4 202 34 20 15:00 49 99 1 3 C3 E 300 14:00 17 51 17:00 6 18 6/16/91 1 3 C3 E 97 1 2.4 121 21 7 15:00 77 93 6/16/91 •67,-ii 1 3 C3 MO 100 22:00 20 20 17:00 6 6 6/16/91 1 3 C3 MO 97 1 2 49 10 3 15:00 77 37 6 1 C3 MI 275 10:00 20 55 17:00 10 28 6/21/91 6 1 C3 MI 99 1 2 136 27 14 20:00 38 52 6/21/91 6 1 C3 E 2750 14:00 12 330 17:00 6 165 6/21/91 6 1 03 E 99 1 2.1 1296 156 78 20:00 38 493 6/22/91 7 2 C3 E 4250 14:00 17 722.5 17:00 9 383 6/22/91 7 2 03 E 99 1 2.1 2004 341 180 15:00 49 982 6/23/91 1 3 C3 E 3000 14:00 30 900 17:00 2 60 6/23/91 1 3 03 E 99 1 2.1 1414 424 28 15:00 77 1089 6/23/91 1 3 03 MO 300 22:00 20 60 17:00 10 30 6/23/91 1 3 C3 MO 99 1 2 149 30 15 15:00 77 114 -_ 6/28/91 6 1 C3 MI 200 10:00 20 40 17:00 10 20 6/28/91 6 1 03 MI 98 1 2 98 20 10 20:00 38 37 . 6/28/91 6 1 03 E 400 14:00 20 80 17:00 6 24 6/28/91 6 1 C3 E 98 1 2.2 178 36 11 20:00 38 68 ._ . 6/29/91 7 2 03 E 2000 14:00 15 300 17:00 9 180 6/29/91 7 2 C3 E 98 1 2.4 817 123 74 15:00 49 400 760/61 1 3 C3 E 2000 14:00 9 180 17:00 5 100 6/30/91 1 3 03 E 98 1 2.4 817 74 41 15:00 77 629 730/91 1 3 C3 MO 300 22:00 20 60 17:00 10 30 6/30/91 1 3 C3 MO 98 1 2 147 29 15 15:00 77 113 7/4/91 5 1 T3 MI 50 9:00 10 5 17:00 5 3 7/4/91 5 1 T3 MI 99 0 2 25 2 1 19:00 36 9 7/4/91 5 1 T3 E 500 16:00 20 100 17:00 15 75 7/4/91 5 1 T3 E 90 1 2.8 161 32 24 19:00 36 58 7/5/91 6 2 T3 E 500 19:00 20 100 17:00 15 75 7/5/91 6 2 T3 E 90 1 2.8 161 32 24 20:00 38 61 --- 7/6/91 7 3 T3 E 1500 14:00 15 225 17:00 8 120 7/6/91 7 3 T3 E 80 2 3.2 375 56 30 15:00 49 184 7/7/91 1 4 T3 E 1500 14:00 15 225 17:00 8 120 7f7/91 1 4 T3 E 2 3.2 375 56 30 15:00 77 289 7/7/91 1 4 T3 MO 100 22:00 10 10 17:00 10 10 717191 1 4 T3 MO 99 0 2 50 5 5 15:00 77 38 7/12/91 6 1 03 MI 125 10:00 20 25 _ 17:00 10 13 7/12/91 6 1 C3 MI 99 1 2 62 12 6 20:00 38 24 7/13/91 7 2 03 E 1250 14:06 17 212.5 17:00 9 113 7/13/91 7 2 03 E 99 1-1.6- 826.-- .146- ---i4 15:00 _ _ 49 --464 -- Page 4 7/14/91 1 3 C3 C3- E MO 1750 14:00 22:00 30 20 525 35 5 80 80 160 170 127.5 10 10 17:00 17:00 17:00 17:00 17:00 17:00 17:00 17:00 17:00 17:00 2 10 10 6 6 7 12 10 15 10 35 18 10 24 24 56 120 75 15 20 7/14/91 1 1 4 3 C3 C3 99 99 99 98 98 98 98 98 99 100 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1.5 2 2 1155 347 17 2 39 39 71 69 52 5 5 23 9 5 12 12 25 49 31 7 10 15:00 15:00 77 77 36 36 36 889 67 18 175 7/14/91 7/2-47/1 7/24/91 7/25/91 7/26/91 7/27/91 7/28/91 7/28/91 8/3/91 3 1 1 2 3 4 5 5 1 87 50 7/24/91 7/24T9 i 772-679-i 712579-1- __ 7/27/91 4 _ 4- _ --6- ___ - 9 _ - i 1 1 7 1 1 ___ - 3 •4 5 5 1 03 C3 63 C3 C3 C3 T3 MI E E E E E MO MI 100 400 400 800 1000 750 100 200 9:00 19:00 19:00 19:00 14:00 14:00 22:00 8:00 5 20 20 20 17 17 10 5 C3 C3 03 03 C3 19:00 19:00 19:00 20:00 15:00 15:00 15:00 15:00 4 5 6 7 1 1 7 2 2 2.2 2.4 2.4 2 2 196 196 356 408 306 50 100 71 71 135 200 236 38 49 38 49 77 77 49 7/28/91 7/28/91 8/3/91 C3 C3 T3 •--- e73/91 - --- - 1 T3 E 2500 14:00 20 500 17:00 20 500 8/3/91 7 1 T3 85 14 1 3.1 685 137 137 15:00 49 336 . _ _____ 8/4/91 .._. __ _ 1 __ . _ 2 T3 E 2500 14:00 20 500 17:00 20 500 8/4/91 1 2 T3 85 14 1 3.2 664 133 133 15:00 77 511 _ 8/4/91 _ _ __ _ . ••_____ _ . 1 .._ 2 T3 MO 400 22:00 10 40 17:00 20 80 8/4/91 1 2 T3 100 0 0 2 200 20 40 15:00 77 154 8/8/91 5 1 C3 MI 50 10:00 5 2.5 17:00 10 5 8/8/91 5 1 C3 100 0 0 2 25 1 3 19:00 36 9 •476 i 5 1 C3 E 200 19:00 20 40 17:00 7 14 8/8/91 5 1 C3 97 3 0 1.9 102 20 7 19:00 36 37 - - -8-/-9791 -__ :CI_ 1 2 C3 E 200 19:00 20 40 17:00 7 14 8/9/91 6 2 C3 97 3 0 2 97 19 7 20:00 38 37 -6-li -676 i i 3 C3 E 500 14:00 17 85 17:00 9 45 8/10/91 7 3 C3 97 3 0 2.1 231 39 21 15:00 49 113 — -4 C3 E 500 14:00 17 85 17:00 6 30 8/11/91 1 4 C3 97 3 0 2.1 231 39 14 15:00 77 178 8/1 ii6i f C3 MO 100 22:00 10 10 17:00 20 20 8/11/91 1 4 03 100 0 0 2 50 5 10 15:00 77 39 8/15/91 . 5- -- -6- - 1 C3 MI 125 10:00 20 25 17:00 10 13 8/15/91 5 1 C3 99 0 1 2 62 12 6 19:00 36 22 --8i1-6i6-1 2 C3 E 1250 14:00 12 150 17:00 6 75 8/16/91 6 2 C3 99 0 1 2.1 589 71 35 20:00 38 224 —6-17i91 7 3 C3 E 1750 14:00 17 297.5 17:00 9 158 8/17/91 7 3 C3 99 0 1 2.1 825 140 74 15:00 49 404 8/i 8/91 1 4 C3 MO 175 10:00 20 35 17:00 10 18 8/18/91 1 4 C3 9901 2 87 17 9 15:00 77 67 8/1591 i 5 1 C3 MI 50 10:00 20 10 17:00 10 5 8/15/91 5 1 03 99 0 1 2 25 5 2 19:00 36 9 _ _ -8/16/91 __.__._.__. _ -6 2 C3 E 500 14:00 12 60 17:00 6 30 8/16/91 6 2 C3 99 0 1 2 248 30 15 20:00 38 94 8/17/91 7 3 C3 E 750 14:00 17 127.5 17:00 9 68 8/17/91 7 3 C3 99 0 1 2 371 63 33 15:00 49 182 871-1-/ 91 1 4 C3 E 750 14:00 30 225 17:00 2 15 8/18/91 1 4 C3 99 0 1 2 371 111 7 15:00 77 286 1 4 C3 MO 75 22:00 20 15 17:00 10 8 8/18/91 1 4 C3 99 0 1 2 37 7 4 15:00 77 29 _—..6i18i61 -9-/2-1//1 -91 4 - 1 T3 MI 125 10:00 20 25 17:00 10 13 8/21/91 4 1 T3 96 2 2 2 60 12 6 19:00 36 22 ---9722-/ 5 2 T3 E 1250 14:00 15 187.5 17:00 10 125 8/22/91 5 2 T3 96 2 2 1.7 706 106 71 19:00 36 254 8/237-91 6 3 T3 E 1750 14:00 15 262.5 17:00 10 175 8/23/91 6 3 T3 96 2 2 1.7 988 148 99 20:00 38 376 8724/91 7 4 T3 E 2500 14:00 15 375 17:00 5 125 8/24/91 7 4 T3 96 2 2 1.7 1412 212 71 15:00 49 692 8/25/91 1 5 T3 E 2000 14:00 15 300 17:00 5 100 8/25/91 1 5 T3 96 2 2 1.7 1129 169 56 15:00 77 870 8/25/91 1 5 T3 MO 200 22:00 20 40 17:00 10 20 8/25/91 1 5 T3 96 2 2 2 96 19 10 15:00 77 74 8/29/91 5 1 03 MI 50 9:00 20 10 17:00 5 3 8/29/91 5 1 03 9901 2 25 5 1 19:00 36 9 8/29/91 5 1 03 E 800 14:00 17 136 17:00 15 120 8/29/91 5 1 03 95 4 1 1.8 422 72 63 19:00 36 152 8729/91 5 1 03 MO 50 22:00 20 10 17:00 10 5 8/29/91 5 1 03 ---1 99 0 1 2 25 5 2 19:00 36 9 8i36791 6 1 03 MI 100 900 20 20 17...60 5 5 8/30/91 6 1 03 99 0 1 2 50 10 2 2000 38 19 5736791- - 6 1 03 E 1000 14:00 15 150 17:00 15 150 8/30/91 6 1 03 99 1 0 2.6 381 57 57 20:00 38 145 6fkisai 6 1 03 MO 100 22:00 20 20 17:00 10 10 8/30/91 6 1 C3 99 0 1 2 50 10 5 20:00 38 19 9/4/91 4 1 03 MI 200 10:00 20 40 17:00 10 20 9/4/91 4 1 03 99 0 1 2 99 20 10 19:00 36 36 9/5/91 5 2 03 E 2000 14:00 16 320 17:00 7 140 9/5/91 5 2 03 99 0 1 1.6 1238 198 87 19:00 36 446 9/6/91 6 3 03 E 3500 14:00 12 420 17:00 6 210 9/6/91 6 3 03 99 0 1 1.6 2166 260 130 20:00 38 823 - 9/7791 7 4 03 E 2500 14:00 17 425 17:00 9 225 9/7/91 7 4 Ci 99 0 1.6 1547 263 139 16766 49 758 -- 9/8/91 1 5 03 E 2000 14:00 30 600 17:00 1 20 9/8/91 1 5 03 99 0 1 1.6 1238 371 12 15:00 77 953 Page 5 9/9/91 _ 9/6/9i _ 9/6/91 _ 9/7/91 9/8/91 -6721/91 9/22/91 9/23/91 _ 9/25/91 _ 9/26/6T 9/28/91 9/30/91. 10/2/61 10/3191 10/4/91 10/6/91 .10/7/91. 67faiai 3 10/16/91 _ 4 _ I0717/91 5 10/18,91 6 7 10/20/91 - 1 2 3 10/23/91 4 10/24/91. 5 10/25191 6 7 10/27/91 1 10/28/91 2 10/29/91 10/31/91 11/1/91 2 6 6 7 1 _._•___ 1 •___•___••_ 6 7 1 -- 1 ----• 2 3 4 _.•_• 5 6 _• 7 1 ___•_____• • 2 _.__•__ 3 4 5 6 • 7 1 2 • 1 •___•_ •_• _ 2 3 4 5 6 6 2_ 3 3 2 3 3 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 2 3 4 5 6 7 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 C3 C2 C2 C2 02 C2 03 C3 C3 03 C3 03 C3 C3 C3 03 C3 03 02 C2 C2 C2 C2 C2 C2 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 C3 C3 03 C3 C3 C3 Ti Ti Ti T1 MO MI E E MO MI E E MO MI MI E E MO MI MI E E MO MI MI MI E E MO MO MI E MO _MI__ - MI 200 200 2000 5250 2750 275 75 750 1250 125 150 150 1500 1500 1750 3250 2000 200 175 175 1750 2500 7000 3750 375 1250 1250 1250 12500 17250 24250 18750 17250 1725 1725 75 750 1000 2500 1750 175 475 475 4750 7000 10:00 10:00 14:00 14:00 14:00 22:00 10:00 14:00 14:00 22:00 10:00 10:00 14:00 14:00 14:00 14:00 14:00 10:00 10:00 10:00 14:00 14:00 14:00 14:00 10:00 10:00 10:00 10:00 14:00 14:00 14:00 14:00 14:00 10:00 10:00 10:00 14:00 14:00 14:00 14:00 10:00 10:00 10:00 14:00 14:00 20 20 12 17 30 20 20 17 30 20 20 20 16 17 12 17 30 20 20 20 16 12 17 30 20 20 20 20 16 17 12 17 30 20 20 20 16 12 17 30 20 20 20 15 15 40 40 240 892.5 825 55 15 127.5 375 25 30 30 240 255 210 552.5 600 40 35 35 280 300 1190 1125 75 250 250 250 2000 2932.5 2910 3187.5 5175 345 345 15 120 120 425 525 35 95 95 712.5 1050 17:00. 17:00 17:00 17:00 17:00 17:00 17:00 17:00 17:00 17:00 17:00 17:00 17:00 17:00 17:00 17:00 17:00 17:00 17:00 17:00 17:00 17:00 17:00 17:00 17:00 17:00 17:00 17:00 17:00 17:00 17:00 17:00 17:00 17:00 17:00 17:00 17:00 17:00 17:00 17:00 17:00_ 17:00 17:00 17:00 17:00 10 10 6 9 2 10 10 9 2 10 10 10 7 7 6 9 10 10 10 7 6 9 10 10 10 10 7 7 6 9 1 10 10 10 7 6 9 1 10 10 10 10 10 20 20 120 473 55 28 8 68 25 13 15 15 105 105 105 293 20 20 18 18 123 150 630 38 38 125 125 125 875 1208 1455 1688 173 173 173 8 53 60 225 18 18 48__ 48 475 700 9/9/91 9/6/91 9/6/91 9/7/91 9/8/91 9/8/91 9/20/91 9/21/91 9/22/91 9/22/91 9/23/91 9/24/91 9/25/91 9/26/91 9/27/91 9/28/91 9/29/91 9/30/91 10/1/91 10/2/91 10/3/91 10/4,91 10/5/91 10/6/91 10/7/91 10/13/91 10/14/91 10/15/91 10/16/91 10/17/91 10/18/91 10/19/91 10/20/91 10/21/91 10/22/91 10/23/91 10/24/91 10/25/91 10/26/91 10/27/91 10/28/91 10/29/91 10/30/91 10/31/91 11/1/91 6 1 1 2 3 3 1 2 3 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 C3 C2 C2 C2 C2 C2 C3 C3 C3 C3 C3 C3 C3 03 C3 C3 C3 C3 C2 C2 C2 C2 C2 C2 C2 01 01 01 01 01 01 C1 01 01 01 C3 C3 C3 C3 C3 C3 Ti Ti T1 Ti MO MI E E MO MI E E MO MI MI E E MO MI MI E MO MI MI MI E E MO MO MI E E E MO MI MI E E 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 2 99 2 99 2.7 733 2.7 1925 2.7 1008 2 136 2 37 1.6 464 1.6 773 2 62 2 73 2 73 2.4 606 2.4 606 2.4 707 2.7 1168 2.7 719 2 97 2 85 2 85 2.7 629 2.7 898 2.7 2515 2.7 1347 2 182 2 556 2 556 2 556 2.4 4635 2.4 6397 2.4 8993 2.7 6181 2.7 5686 2 768 2 768 2 36 2.7 269 2.7 359 2.7 898 2.7 629 2 85 2 230 2 230 1.8 2560 2 3395 20 20 88 327 303 27 7 79 232 12 15 15 97 103 85 198 216 19 17 17 101 108 428 404 36 111 111 111 742 1087 1079 1051 1706 154 154 7 43 43 153 189 17 46 46 384 509 10 10 44 173 20 14 4 42 15 6 7 7 42 42 42 105 7 10 8 8 44 54 226 13 18 56 56 56 324 448 540 556 57 77 77 4 19 22 81 6 8 23 23 256 340 19:00 20:00 20:00 15:00 15:00 15:00 20:00 15:00 15:00 15:00 19:00 19:00 19:00 19:00 20:00 15:00 15:00 19:00 19:00 19:00 19:00 20:00 15:00 15:00 19:00 15:00 19:00 19:00 19:00 19:00 20:00 15:00 15:00 19:00 19:00 19:00 19:00 20:00 15:00 15:00 19:00 19:00 19:00 19:00 20:00 36 38 38 49 77 77 38 49 77 77 36 36 36 36 38 49 77 36 36 36 36 38 49 77 36 77 36 36 36 36 38 49 77 36 36 36 36 38 49 77 36 36 36 36 38 36 38 279 943 776 105 14 227 596 48 26 26 218 218 269 572 553 35 31 31 226 341 1232 _1037 65 428 200 200 1669 2303 3417 3028 4378 276 276 13 97 137 440 484 31 83 83 922 1290 Page 6 11/2/91 11/3/91 11/4/91 11/4/91 11/5/91 11i6T91 11/7/91 11/8/91 11i9i41 7 1 2 2 3 4 5 6 7 5 Ti Ti Ti C1 C1 C1 C1 C1 13250 1325 1325 550 5500 6500 6500 8750 13000 14:00 10:00 10:00 10:00 14:00 14:00 14:00 14:00 14:00 15 20 20 20 16 17 17 12 17 1987.5 265 265 110 880 1105 1105 1050 2210 17:00 17:00 17:00 17:00 17:00 17:00 17:00 17:00 17:00 5 10 10 10 7 7 7 6 9 663 133 133 55 385 455 455 525 1170 11/2/91 11/3/91 11/4/91 11/4/91 11/5/91 11/6/91 11/7/91 11/8/91 11/9/91 7 1 2 • 2 3 4 5 6 7 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 Ti Ti Ti C1 C1 C1 C1 C1 01 mimimlmirnimimIKIKI I H KK1K. i KIK1 ;IIIH ml IKI 1 1 1 ! 1 imIKI 1 ol I 1 1 1 1-101m1m:m7imm177—ioimrnimmlmolmmolmjTlm:mimio olm . . . 97 97 97 99 99 99 99 99 99 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2.1 2 2 2 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 6120 643 643 272 2593 3064 3064 4125 6129 918 129 306 64 15:00 15:00 49 77 2999 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 495 129 54 415 521 521 495 1042 64 27 182 19:00 19:00 19:00 36 36 36 36 231 98 933 1103 1103 1568 3003 215 215 248 552 19:00 19:00 20:00 15:00 36 38 49 11/10/91 1 7 C1 9750 14:00 20 1950 17:00 1 98 11/10,91 1 7 C1 99 0 1 2.1 4596 919 46 15:00 77 3539 11711791 2 8 C1 975 10:00 20 195 17:00 10 98 11/11/91 2 8 01 99 0 1 2 483 97 48 19:00 36 174 11/1 5i91 6 1 02 800 10:00 20 160 17:00 10 80 11/15/91 6 1 C2 99 0 1 2 396 79 40 20:00 38 150 11/16/91 7 2 --- C2 4000 14:00 17 680 17:00 9 360 11/16/91 7 2 C2 99 0 1 2.3 1722 293 155 15:00 49 844 iiiiiiif 1 6 C2 14:00 20 700 17:00 2 70 11/17/91 1 3 02 99 0 1 2.3 1507 301 30 15:00 77 1160 11/17/91 1 4 C2 700 22:00 20 140 17:00 10 70 11/17/91 1 4 C2 99 0 1 2 347 69 35 15:00 77 267 11/18/91 2 1 C1 500 10:00 20 100 17:00 10 50 11/18/91 2 1 C1 99 0 1 2 248 50 25 19:00 36 89 11/19/91 3 2 C1 500 10:00 20 100 17:00 10 50 11/19/91 3 2 C1 99 0 1 2 248 50 25 19:00 36 89 11/20/91 4 3 C1 5000 14:00 16 800 17:00 7 350 11/20/91 4 3 C1 99 0 1 2 2475 396 173 19:00 36 891 11/21/91 5 4 C1 6250 14:00 17 1062.5 17:00 7 438 11/21/91 5 4 C1 99 0 1 2.1 2946 501 206 19:00 36 1061 11/22/91 6 5 C1 7750 14:00 12 930 17:00 6 465 11/22/91 6 5 C1 99 0 1 2.2 3488 419 209 20:00 38 1325 11/23/91 7 6 C1 17500 14:00 17 2975 17:00 9 1575 11/23/91 7 6 C1 99 0 1 2.5 6930 1178 624 15:00 49 3396 11/24/91 1 7 C1 1 Wj 13500 14:00 20 2700 17:00 1 135 11/24/91 1 7 C1 99 0 1 2.5 5346 1069 53 15:00 77 4116 11/25/91 2 8 C1 1350 10:00 20 270 17:00 10 135 11/25/91 2 8 C1 99 0 1 2 668 134 67 19:00 36 241 11/28i91 5 1 C2 250 10:00 20 50 17:00 10 25 11/28/91 5 1 C2 99 0 1 2 124 25 12 19:00 36 45 11/29/91 6 2 C2 2500 14:00 12 300 17:00 6 150 11/29/91 6 2 C2 99 0 1 1.9 1303 156 78 20:00 38 495 11/30/91 7 3 C2 5500 14:00 17 935 17:00 9 495 11/30/91 7 3 C2 99 0 1 1.9 2866 487 258 15:00 49 1404 12/1/91 1 4 C2 4000 14:00 30 1200 17:00 2 80 12/1/91 1 4 02 99 0 1 1.9 2084 625 42 15:00 77 1605 12/1/91 1 5 C2 400 22:00 20 80 17:00 10 40 12/1/91 1 5 C2 99 0 1 2 198 40 20 15:00 77 152 12/2/91 2 1 C3 50 10:00 20 10 17:00 10 5 12/2/91 2 1 C3 99 0 1 2 25 5 2 19:00 36 9 12/3/91 3 2 03 50 10:00 20 10 17:00 10 5 12/3/91 3 2 03 99 0 1 2 25 5 2 19:00 36 9 12/4/91 4 3 C3 500 14:00 16 80 17:00 7 35 12/4/91 4 3 C3 99 0 1 2.1 236 38 17 19:00 36 85 12/5/91 5 4 03 750 14:00 17 127.5 17:00 7 53 12/5/91 5 4 C3 99 0 1 2.1 354 60 25 19:00 36 127 12/6/91 6 5 C3 1000 14:00 12 120 17:00 6 60 12/6/91 6 5 03 99 0 1 2.1 471 57 28 20:00 38 179 12i7i81 7 6 03 1500 14:00 17 255 17:00 9 135 12/7/91 7 6 03 99 0 1 2.1 707 120 64 15:00 49 347 12/8/91 1 7 C3 1250 14:00 20 250 17:00 1 13 12/8/91 1 7 03 99 0 1 2.1 589 118 6 15:00 77 454 12/9/91 2 8 C3 125 10:00 20 25 17:00 10 13 12/9/91 2 8 03 99 0 1 2 62 12 6 19:00 36 22 12/2/91 2 1 01 450 10:00 20 90 17:00 10 45 12/2/91 2 1 C1 99 0 1 2 223 45 22 19:00 36 80 12/3/91 3 .._ 2 01 4500 14:00 16 720 17:00 7 315 12/3/91 3 2 01 99 0 1 2.1 2121 339 149 19:00 36 764 12/4/91 4 3 01 5250 14:00 17 892.5 17:00 7 368 12/4/91 4 3 01 99 0 1 2.1 2475 421 173 19:00 36 891 12/5/91 5 4 01 5250 14:00 17 892.5 17:00 7 368 12/5/91 5 4 01 99 0 1 2.1 2475 421 173 19:00 36 891 12/6/91 6 5 C1 7000 14:00 12 840 17:00 6 420 12/6/91 6 5 01 99 0 1 2.1 3300 396 198 20:00 38 1254 1211/91 7 6 01 10500 14:00 17 1785 17:00 9 945 12/7/91 7 6 C1 99 0 1 2.3 4520 768 407 15:00 49 2215 12/8/91 1 7 01 7500 14:00 30 2250 17:00 1 75 12/8/91 1 7 C1 99 0 1 2.3 3228 968 32 15:00 77 2486 12/9/91 2 8 C1 750 10:00 20 150 17:00 10 75 12/9/91 2 8 01 99 0 1 2 371 74 37 19:00 36 134 Page 7 • • To: From: Subject: JCMUItMN V V1Y► Job No.: Date: %C? 'A:. 4;1 /5 5 Project: l C'U4'� .42 L ■ if G CGG'�L •J' lG U C ' c.0v1 c�C • //1 / - / /1'1 /i 1gCC% T ?6 .4( Alral Job No. : Date • /i ,AtAi Project: 7rGoo Adi :4-7-:7 c-?;//‘ Subject: l c. .e. e /;4 ; U/ (.-G7 '-101/ 7i C1/'O o5 l��r i ll••. 1� -06- -(-)/ .76 Gam' f /s/7, SIC l.[) 9/-a Da c')'7OC'7 v��� . /< e /.% 9 �c . ,Y� ��s /v / es ai..e r<yl� 2Q 55 e G�I1 �:1::.4.': �ti: ,.. 1..�.F.s. ,apt:• From: • To: Data: Subject: Richardson, Peter J. (RICHP) BOI:BOI:SEA:GOELT Monday,•December 30, 1991 1:42 pm railroad crossing agreement -Reply -Repl 1 spoke with my attorney friend at the Idaho PUC (Don Howell 208- 334 - 0308); an attorney at the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission (Dan Trotter 206 - 586-1146) and a staff member of the WUTC (Alan Scott 206- 753 - 6410). The gist of their collective wisdom follows: 1. It was uniformly volunteered by each individual that railroads have a reputation for being extremely difficult in negotiating crossing agreements. 2. There are no federal or state statutes dealing with your specific situation. 3. There is a public policy that discourages the proliferation of railroad crossings for obvious safety and efficiency reasons. 4. In Idaho the PUC has the jurisdiction to order a railroad to install a private crossing but only if the crossing is for agricultural purposes - the WUTC has no similar authority over private crossings. 5. The WUTC does have the jurisdiction to order a railroad to install a crossing (and resolve disputes over the terms of the crossing agreement) only if the crossing is a public right -of -way. See Washington Code 81 -53 -261 and 81 -53 -060. 6. Without knowing more details on the nature of your client's proposed crossing and the commercial use to which the land will be put, it is difficult to speculate as to whether there is any chance of dedicating the crossing to a county or city in order to fall within the public right -of -way jurisdiction of the WUTC. 7. That is all. Thank you for the opportunity to do a quickie on this issue. Give me a call if you would like a real memo or the like. MEMORANDUM TO: McLeod File FROM: Tom Goelt2 RE; Railroad Crossing This memorandum summarizes RCW ch. 81.53, which relates to the construction of railrd'ad crossings: I. Definitions: RCW 81.53.010. A. "Commission" means ''the utilities and transportation commission of Washington." B. "Highway" means nail state and county roads, streets, alleys, avenues, boulevards, parkways and other public places actually open and in use, (r to be opened a (used, )for travel by the public."" II. Grade separation required where practicable: RCW 81.53.020. A. Genera]. rule: "All highways and extensions of highways hereafter laid out and constructed shall cross existing railroads by passing either over or under the same, when practicable, and shall in no instance cross any railroad at grade without authority first being obtained from the commission to do so." B. Factors commission shall consider in determining whether separation of grades is practicable: 1. amount and character of travel on railroad and highway, 2. grade and alignment of railroad and highway, 3. cost of separating grades, 4. topography of the country, and 5. all other circumstances and conditions naturally involved in such an inquiry. III. Petition for crossing -- hearing -- order: RCW 81.53.030. A. Local government files petition: "Whenever. . . the municipal authorities of a city. . . desire to extend a highway across a railroad at grade, they shall file a written petition with the commission, setting forth the reasons why the crossing cannot be wade either above'or below grade." B. Investigation: 1. Notice and hearing: "Upon receiving the petition the commission shall immediately investigate it, giving at least ten days' notice to the railroad DE.AMN00391,1EM/ Seattle company and the county or city affected thereby, of the time and place of the investigation, to th end that all parties interested may be present an heard." 2. Evidence: The evidence introduced shall be reduced to writing and be filed by the commission 3. Findings: If [the commission] finds that it is not practicable to cross the railroad or highway either above or below grade, the commission shall enter a written order in the cause, either granting or denying the right to construct a grad crossing at the point in question." 4. Safety Precautions: The commission may provide i the order authorizing a grade crossing, or at any subsequent time, that the railroad company shall install and maintain proper signals, warnings, flagmen, interlocking devices, or other devices o means to secure the safety of the public and its employees." C. Supplemental hearing: RCW 81.53.040. 1. Deflection: "if the commission finds that it is impracticable to construct an over - crossing or under - crossing on the establisc4..or,..pro.osed highway, and shall find that by deflecting e established or proposed highway a practicable and feasible over - crossing or under - crossing or a safer grade crossing can be provided, it shall continue the hearing and hold a supplemental hearing thereon." IV. Cost when highway crosses railroad: RCW 81.53.110. A. Fair apportionment: 'Whenever, under the provisions of this chapter, a new highway is constructed across a railroad. . . the entire expense of constructing a ne grade crossing, an overcrossing, under - crossing [sic], or safer grade crossing, or changing the nature and style of construction of an existing crossing, including the expense of constructing approaches to such crossing and the expense of securing rights of w for such approaches, as the case may be, shall be apportioned by the commission between the railroad, municipality or county affected. . . in such manner a justice may require, regard being had for all facts. . " V. Penalty: RCW 81.53.210. 1. Railroad company liable for up to $5,000 for noncompliance with this chapter, to be recovered in a civil action. DCSAH \00391.111 1 Seattle 2 To: From: Subject: - , L. o ALV< 14-EW es Job No.: Date: Project.: / -11 L 1.. � fZ uf. ez-v P•fez,reper /'/ / - a-7/ :Q. /'t )4' 'A-et� ac, zt4 &e.‹__6 6-27 1/ %d ce, -7 07 e/ L 9(), 7/(er7-? 02-2 je'i'Cy201 /. /2,64 ff-/ ,-4rfc) MEMORANDUM [JAN 13 1992 .Jobo. CITY OF TUtiaie\: PLANNINad 7-6).e/Ze77 eA //111(7/7- e K/ !t act)6 -y-76 / tG ) 6c-ao zellMffillree ,at // AC, CI 40 V Ver-i-1-4 Ze„:6s.e.4:7- -C/ '‘ 0 /A'0!4(7 }7-7 t2 -C y --e K -30, ar /50 67e A a. 17-7-7 - /6/ 1-0 /) 5)-2 4-0/ (9 e/'86 Pee, e_ 4-6 4r '-/ Ge.)2e .CLV €.1z -C 2-O-3 e CO (,19( ••■• • e'Ve Crfarr To: ire Fr sG •/'I2l%'l' , Allin44Wr9/ 41..r Subject: /ECG VnKIv&V -VIII Job No.: / 9 /q9. Date: Project: / /%� G4 Cf /iti 1/ •/6 ,17e'0/ /e_e„) e. Gay -c.-o v Yoh- o Ls! rC/ .� o / J G � e..6-'5',C e--Ai2 /G!< -ei s," e//e. f - G- / / ;; l!' ce_9 lP( ��c�t.f 7' j7 7 t ri e -ic4e_, C 0/ ;1? ZY- .� 7 f61�V�G Q�y.g. ate, �� el-f/' e'. u� g/C 11 7 //0 / /C'' A Cl' ` /.0 -C%( �/�P�(/r%L �/[.G✓� /4 ; Air LG / e-re����� /ei� 5a7;46( z 5 ee, a AKee r To: From: Subject: Job Date • / / 5 Project: Q //4, Y6e 576 -4 /a-C--(1)."?-7 a//6-7z4-,;47 :1` X/ /f-e/le- 61 PI/K-A--7 ( e c K-.9. K%). a /7-6 A'6z O7;] . P17- le /.2,5-e.07 2 Gt-ie 07 P/4 c-)so a/ ezr 55 e.; /.,2.- &--76".)_{(-)i---..5-e_o/ -,_.e i,- A , -07 lfe-ze a/ ec/ 7re6 ' Zif-,e7 .%'a .. e-ci 0 i•-:,,,Gi.x.-y cZe. ,,.,-, c-/ a,e/r4-7` -u-ed ,e-Al ,c 7 . 'f-2 6 V/-4-6 • der -0/6V c--"F/ A '1/4 W) a- r To: 2 7 �i1 From: es SubJect: E MORAN DUM Job No.:, • Date: � ° /597 Project.: -eec 67/4-e, i l ,i'' f ' ,',' ALP -& t- 0 �: �4- A e+, lGu/ am. / /1 P e �2 I _e_,s -f /i bU/-2Ger/7 ei K / %C! -e NOTICE OF PROPOSED SPECIAL PERMIT AP'LICATION RENTON, WASHINGTON A Special Permit Application has been filed and accepted with the Development Services Division of the City of Renton. The following briefly describes the application and the necessary Public Approvals. PROJECT NAME /NUMBER: Boeing Test Lake ECF;SP- 120 -91 DESCRIPTION: Applicant is seeking a permit to excavate 11,000 cy of material to create an approximately .96 acre lake on the future Longacres Office Complex site. This lake will be utilized to test the viability of providing a full -size lake (as a segment of the storm drainage management system, and as a water amenity) at the time of development of the office complex. A separate application is made for the test lake (rather than making the test lake a part of the Office Complex project EIS) because it is preferred that the applicant determine whether the lake would work effectively prior to developing a plan to provide a full -size lake for storm drainage management. In the event that the test lake is unsuccessful, the site is proposed to be restored to its present configuration, and revegetated. GENERAL LOCATION: NW portion of the southern section of the Longacres site PUBLIC APPROVALS: Environmental Review Special Permit Approval Building Permit The application can be reviewed in the Development Services Division located on the third floor of Renton City Hall. Comments will be accepted anytime prior to Public Hearings, during Public Hearings, or prior to an administrative site plan approval. For further information on the application, or if you wish to be made a PARTY OF RECORD and receive additional notifications, by mail, of the City's environmental determinations, appeal periods and /or the public hearing date(s) for this project, please contact the Development Services Division at 235 -2550. Please include the project NUMBER when calling for proper file identification. _ 3. F 0 R T ..,k.' genmalol • 3 • - • 4 T l t C l Y.T l Y • '.._..ter• -+ • { 11 1' 2' '1 • • j l: s,w mi It 4 -S' 7iM1��ST `I t :i ,it 1 4 4 4 I • ;i • •1 4- N =200' McLeod Group, Inc 213 Lake St So. !t5 Kirkland WA 98033 City of Renton Development Services Divisions 200 Mill Ave So. Renton, Washington 98055 1 Nov 1991 Ref: Boeing Test Lake EFC;SP120 -91 We have recieved notification of the subject impending project. We are interested in being kept informed of details of the project and the affect it may have on the surrounding property. The McLeod porperty is to the west of the advertised project and the natural drainage passes through the now Longacres facility. Will this drainage course be altered in any way. We would assume the the present capacity 'of 18 cfs via this route would be maintained now and in the future. The maintaining of this outflow has bearing on the flooding and water table elevation upstream. We would also be interested to know as to wether the installation of the 48 inch outfall from the Nelson Place - Longacres Way Storm Drainage System trunk line to the P 1 Channel can occur while this experiement is in place. Plea - advise us when detail of the project is sufficient to a••ress these issues. ,G 3F.o r .;, . Earl Clymer, Mayor CITY OF RENTON Planning /Building /Public Works Department Lynn Guttmann, Administrator December 30, 1991 Don Miles McLeod Group, inc. 213 Lake St S, #5 Kirkland, WA 98033 SUBJECT: Boeing Test Lake (ECF;SP 120 -91) Dear Mr. Miles: This letter is being written in response to your correspondence of November 1, 1991, requesting information concerning drainage management related to the above - referenced project. I am Informed by our City's Storm Drainage Management staff that the runoff which originates on the McLeod property and follows a defined drainage course through the Boeing Longacres Park property will be maintained as part of this project and (to our knowledge based on current proposals) future development of the Boeing Longacres Park property. The Boeing Company is required to continue to accept the drainage from the McLeod property at the current flow rate. Proposed flow rate increases resulting from future development of the McLeod property may be subject to appeal by the Booing Company. The Boeing Company Is familiar with, and accounting for, the information contained in the City of Tukwila's Nelson Place / Longacres Way Storm Drainage System Preliminary Design Report. The Tukwila Nelson Place / Longacres Way Storm Drainage System Preliminary Design Report recommended the construction of a. 42" diameter storm interceptor from the McLeod property to the Springbrook Creek (P -1 Channel). The final design and construction of the recommended plan will not be impacted by the Boeing Test Lake project. This will require a City of Renton review and approval of the construction plans prior to the issuance of a permit to allow construction in City right -of -way. In addition, we have proposed that this interceptor serve properties in the City of Tukwila only and, therefore, be owned, operated, and maintained via a franchise agreement by the City of Tukwila. Currently, we are not aware of any agreement between the Cities of Renton and Tukwila that require the City of Renton to require the 42" diameter storm interceptor to be constructed. We expect that the construction of this interceptor should be coordinated with the SW 16th Street improvements currently proposed to occur with the Boeing Company's Customer Service Training Center (CSTC) project. i hope this Information has been of assistance to you. If you have additional questions, please contact me at 235-2550. Sincerely, Lenora Biauman Project Manager - T?..ntnn Vilna hinc tr.n OQ11c4 Nelson Place / Longaores Way Drainage PreDesign NOTE: Maximum allowable future flowrate • existing flowrate • 22 ofs * At peak flows, up to 18 ofs will be diverted to Longacres drainage system. Draina e Area - Aores Time of Fbw Desicn Runoff Ditch I.E. Slope Pipe Velocity Flowrate _ Line Loatton Length SB No. Incr. A Total In Drain Up. End 1 C C X A Q A (SF) Ft. Ft /Ft Dia. FPS CFS 0 040D 10.00 _ 2/5/6/7/9/10/14/15 - 13.90 0.25 3.48 _ 12.4 65.20 0.65 42.4 _ 8,30 0.75 6.23 2200 5.50 46.5 0.8 0.85 4.68 45.4 0.0023 42" 4.5 40 *45 -18 a 25 cfs -_ 22 +00 4.94 NOTE: Maximum allowable future flowrate • existing flowrate • 22 ofs * At peak flows, up to 18 ofs will be diverted to Longacres drainage system. Job No.: Date • 6 7 `9 9 Project.: / /lG 00' To: Zit/ / • ��'L /6- `.fie r� •?-7 AVARWMAr From: Subject: ' , / ��r17 U/'' G��� '� e_•; - ofr, //Jni44:red .2vd, 2.7-7.1/,_ 0661/ 41/1(24-..",-;6-#-:2- 744;:ir/eG4IC /(fiVe0d) f , a �5�v , z-' /, 490 i k . - - ,i ce r� � r /l/ P` d`•o /. P ' ' 6i'`. <<-)-v' P 4K ,2 iii / GU`s Jzee /%)-6),0( ' d U /1�z'/ z- - ' /9949 ) ,�-69 ' ., �IL. .. - - d - A •e Aer //1 -s. j /'/p? / Ii / �W..,. /Ace a fa XCJ /D�� �ljL o �.�.fri' "11 e-oa� �GjGG. /f�_;/ �'�%�� rGe t' r eZzac,L 'o6 p) do V--Ce-6 J- /�, or- 0/ 72 ? //n /J11 �'� ,�1Q�r� ✓��� S -C4- 3V4 G;e,e ' li ✓ ,/ 40/ a/J'' a G/ rn, / -74 7‘. t'r , / cre•5) .15: to //1-c-Ke? J , Oa, MEMORANDUM ,e,ocvee e ro 62/ r/SVe,61/ ‘4)4( o 23, ,;1•60 . 22o • 226 nt4 1/. •a, /1 /94/,1 . .66 • e a ,4-6 ...b)/44-cze..f i7-e ea' / ,z•if 1/ 6 ." ‘, /1. 1 ijt To: ei 6 From: / de Subject: / (-6 //5,-e- C'//i )e.7064-r- c,/ 1111C:11111 %OR viva Job No.: Date: /9 9Z Project: /76' e-v /4de12; >KZ-6 / e-//-/e 6--• 1 )g '' / Vi ,Z-/ -2-6 eel/ •6 r i le.e /4-,-- c'r _Z . g, 'OCr - ,}/' X12.--PC , /7 // ;I:e "/C--" ,,.2-e/ c/L---0--- / ..- , e----*, /6" 6/. /c-.). /.7r2e, 5 i''', 4 e-x, i.4/_-. .440/ e.!%-e. E.,,,v5tle.... _,‘ '/7 / c/' G ,?" iiFi"ev1-75 Job No. Date: 8 Project: A- (4. T4%17 � �4 Subject: ,we-,e /01;-- %s �C /-0 To: Subject: • EMUKAN V-unn Job No • • Date: / Project: /1/G ev0 6 c,4. A/ 99x At‘a /6•-)-2 -99 / C- e7/€ /l-V 646 G� 2f ;7 • U !. //i-0 c/a/3-e. l_'i/ cUeg-eelo/O9 fir-. ' - 4 s Cn • %72 7 0/ r G_ e / 7 // :1 a f r 42' / (-9 Gv �- Gs o ) I 0/ / i - / zef(GLC 9 / a7T Atr ea' ' J /1 .144/ 4y -f_c /r CGe V a:55(.c,2-72,,G/ • MILES CONSULTING (206) 451 -2138 SUITE 211 - BLDG 2 300 - 120th AVE. N.E. BELLEVUE, WA 98005 City of Tukwila Planning Dept. 6300 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, Wa 98188 Attn: Moira Bradshaw Asst. Planner Ref. McLeod Exhibition Facility 0 I DEC 1 71991 CH 7 ur I iKvvILA PLANNING DEPT. 16 Dec 1991 We appreciate the opportunity to meet with you to discuss the next phase of McLeod Exhibition Project. As a part of the Environmental Review an Architectual Review. Application has been called for, although not normally a land use requirement of M -1 zoned property. The listing of items subject to review within the mitigated D.N.S. draw in a considerable number of city disciplines. Completion of the Architectual Review Process is now a critical element as we work towards project permitting and finally construction. We suggest that the city staff person, who will deal directly with the specific work effort, be designated so that preliminary details can be worked out. These items of work include: a. On- premise parking layout and circulation. b. Off -site parking layouts, arrangements and agreements. c. Review of U.B.C. /land use code parking stall count requirements. d. On-site and off -site sewer and water improvements. e. Street improvements of So. 158th St. and Strander Blvd. f. Specific criteria for supplementing the Nelson - Longacres storm drainage study. g. Specific details on the Interurban Trail System and Puget Power right -of -way trail improvements. h. Exterior building aesthetics considerations and architectual design. i. Site lighting requirements and allowances. j. Finalization of wetlands mitigation plan and buffer creation. • k. General site landscaping requirements 1. Continued interphasing of McLeod Exhibition Facility and Boeing Longacres Project. As you can see there is a wide variety of items to-deal with. Beginning with a mutual understanding of each element concept will expedite the McLeod Project time frame and will certainly reduce the effort required for city review. We will at this time discuss some specifics on parking layouts and agreements, and will provide preliminary building elevation sketches by the architect. We would appreciate scheduling meetings to discuss various element specifics in the very near future. Again we appreciate the opportunity to meet and 'program the final phases of the McLeod Exhibition Facility Project. The scoping of work item and staff involved at this time will facilitate the phase for all in final project approval. Enclosures; cc S McLeod CITY OF TUKWILA • 6200 SOUTHCENTER BOULEVARD, TUKW1LA, WASHINGTON 9816! PRONE 1 2061433.1800 Gars L i iMOnvn. Akio, STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Prepared 1 November 1991 HEARING DATE: FILE NUMBER: APPLICANT: REQUEST: LOCATION: SEPA DETERMINATION: ATTACHMENTS: 14 November 1991 90- 2- CPA/90 -2 -R: McLeod Exhibition Facility Stuart McLeod 1. Change Comprehensive Plan Designation from Parks & Open Space and Public Facility to Light Industrial 2. Rezone from RA to M -1 The two parcels are bounded on the north by a lot line approximately 550 feet north of an extension of Strander Boulevard, on the east by Burlington Northern Railroad (BN) tracks, on the west by Union Pacific Railroad (UP) tracks and on the south by a lot line 750 feet south of an extension of Strander Boulevard. Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance (Modified) A. Comprehensive Plan Map B. Zoning Map C. Site Plan D. Recommended Comprehensive Plan Map & Zoning District Map E. SEPA Mitigating Measures F. Nelson letter of support G. Embassy Suites letter of support H. Western Pacific Properties letter of support APPENDIX E t9(° Planning Commission Minutes November 14, 1991 90-4-CA: Board of Architectural Review. Design Review Guideline revision. Page 5 Vernon Umetsu provided the staff report. He noted that an amendment needed to be made to the cover page of the staff report; the SEPA Determination of Non - significance was issued on November 13, 1991. He went on to say that this code amendment was determined to be needed by the City Council to clearly authorize the Board of Architectural Review to use whatever additional information they want to use in determining what is an adequate level of design quality that all projects must meet in order to be built in Tukwila. There was a concern by the Council that there was a possibility that someone could challenge the use of any other document other than the specific criteria listed in 18.60.050, the design guidelines. He stated this came up as part of the Council's resolution which asked the Board of Architectural Review to rely upon the draft Multi- Family Standards in all future multi-family developments. The City Attorney said the Board had that authority, however, there was a remote chance that someone could challenge this. Therefore, in order to make sure that there is no question or legal challenge, this amendment was recommended by the Council to be brought before the Planning Commission; and the wording of the amendment was drafted by the City. Attorney. The amendment is shown in the "Recommendation" section of the staff report. Mr. Umetsu then entered attachment "W, a map of the BAR design review areas, into the record. MR. MAUNA MOVED TO ACCEPT 90-4-CA: BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW DESIGN REVIEW GUIDELINE AMENDMENTS BASED ON THE STAFF'S FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS. MR KNUDSON SECONDED THE MOTION; MOTION UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. During the Director's report the Planning Commission agreed to review the first ten pages of the Multi -Family Design Guidelines individually between now and the next regular meeting and discuss them at that time. Mr. Flesher adjourned the meeting at 9:20 p.m. SOS Staff Report to the Planning Commission VICINITY/SITE INFORMATION Vi 90- 2- CPA/90 -2 -R: McLeod Exhibition Facility Page 2 FINDINGS Project Description: Comprehensive land Use Policy Plan Map redesignation from Parks and Open Space and Public Facility to Light Industry and rezone from RA - Agricultural to M -1 - Light Industry. (Applicant is also proposing a 250,000 square foot exhibition facility which would be reviewed by the Board of Architectural review at some future date.) Existing Development: Undeveloped Surrounding Land Use: Immediate Vicinity Abutting the site on the east and west are mainline railroad tracks for the Union Pacific and Burlington Northern Railroad Companies. • A large, type 1, high value wetland runs from the south portion of the site to approximately 180th street. Graveled parking areas, pasture, that in places has been used for a dump site for construction waste and dirt and the Seattle Water Department Cedar River pipeline right -of -way abut the north end of the subject site. Several trails run through the site that have been used, it appears, by racetrack enthusiasts. #r(6. m . T1e" Puget Power i_elsenf substteon lies in the center of the site. Surrounding vicinity: East of Burlington Northern is Longacres Racetrack, which is in its next to last year of operation at the site, to be replaced with Boeing Company facilities. In addition to the campus office setting proposed for the Boeing Company are mid - rise and single story offices and warehouses and undeveloped parcels in the Renton area. West of the subject site along West Valley Highway are commercial facilities including hotels and restaurants. There are also several homes remaining in the area. Farther south on the highway, away from the I-405 interchange, are light industrial, office and distribution uses. Staff Report to the Planning Commission Terrain: Flat 90- 2- CPA/90 -2 -R: McLeod Exhibition Facility Page 3 Vegetation: A tree survey shows that the majority of trees are located within 100 feet of the east and west property lines. Ditches were dug along the sides of the site presumably to drain the properties, hence the tendency to foster mature vegetation. The survey identifies cottonwoods and chestnuts but there are also willow and ash. The other vegetation are pasture grasses and wetland plants and shrubs. Access: There is no access via a public right -of -way to the parcels. There is however potential access from Strander Boulevard, which terminates 200 feet east of the site. 100 foot wide rights-of -way for Puget Power and Union Pacific Railroad separate the subject site from public road right -of -way. Utilities: There are numerous underground and overhead utility lines on the site. Tukwila sanitary sewer and water are available in W. Valley Highway and adequate to serve the site. The storm drainage plan for this drainage basin would need to be revised to reflect a change in land use. There is a Metro sanitary sewer line on the north parcel. According to the applicant there is a buried telephone cable along the western border of the site. A separate parcel of Agricultural and RA property exists adjacent to the north boundary of the subject site that is owned by the Seattle Water Department for the Cedar River 60 inch water line. Puget Sound Power and Light also has a separate parcel that is used for sybstairein within the southern parcel of the subject request. �y1Gti7 5>Vl Public Facilities: The Interurban Bike and Pedestrian Trail will be constructed within the Puget Power right -of -way, which is located 100 feet west of the site. BACKGROUND The subject site was annexed to the City of Tukwila as a result of the Renton/Tukwila Boundary Adjustment in January 1987 and zoned in May 1987. In Renton the site had been zoned Business which is consistent with their Commercial Comprehensive Plan designation for the site. The zoning it received upon annexation to Tukwila however was RA - Agricultural, to make it consistent with Tukwila's Parks and Open Space Comprehensive Plan designation for the site. Therefore there is inconsistency DSO • 1 1 Staff Report to the 90- 2- CPA/90 -2 -R: McLeod Exhibition Facility Planning Commission Page 4 between the two Comprehensive Plans for the same property. Conversations with representatives of the two utilities adjacent to adjacent to the subject site indicate that they are not against being redesignated and rezoned. Seattle Water would not object if the change does not result in additional costs to them and Puget Power feels it would be appropriate for their property to reflect the zoning of adjacent parcels. The wetlands are located on the rezone site and on the larger exhibition facility site, and the Sensitive Areas Overlay Zone regulates how these areas will be preserved and used. A wetlands report was prepared and the wetlands were identified and delineated in the field. The applicant proposes expanding the type 1 wetland shown on Attachment C to accommodate compensatory mitigation for filling several type 3 wetlands located in the north section of the exhibition project site. The applicant has also requested a reduction of the buffer width which will be reviewed when the detailed mitigation plan is submitted with an actual development plan. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP REDESIGNATION Attachment A shows the Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan designations for the land around the subject site. Below are descriptions of what the Tukwila designations mean. Parks and Open Space represent public parks, recreation facilities, school playgrounds, and other public open spaces, including agricultural lands under open space taxation. Commercial areas include commercial services, retail commercial activities with associated warehousing, and compatible and complementary uses including offices. Light Industrial is intended for areas characterized by distributive and light manufacturing uses, commercial and office uses. Public Facilities are community facilities including school buildings, churches, government offices, police and fire stations, and utility facilities. DECISION CRITERIA Although no amendment criteria exist in the Comprehensive Plan or in the enabling legislation for Comprehensive Planning in optional code cities, review standards from court cases give instruction for comprehensive plan amendments icy Staff Report to the Planning Commission and rezones. 90- 2- CPA/90 -2 -R: McLeod Exhibition Facility Page 5 Those standards are listed below in italics and are followed by the applicant's response. The applicant bears the burden of proof in demonstrating the need for a change and supporting the request. 1. Unforseen changes in emaunsrances have occwred in conununity conditions that justify a Comprehensive Plan redesignation of the subject property or mining plan policies. The applicant responds, 'The property owner has secured access via the extension of Strander Boulevard, thus property which presently adjoins an M -1 use and which was previously zones (sic) commercial in Renton can be easily developed into industrial property which is in short supply." Access agreements between the applicant and Union Pacific and Puget Power have been drafted and copies have been supplied to the City. The applicant awaits development approvals prior to executing the agreements. Documentation of industrial property shortage has not factually been established. The Comprehensive Plan anticipates a Strander Extension through the site via a Public Facility designation on the Land Use Map and "Secondary Arterial" on the Circulation Map. The cities of Renton and Tukwila have also recently added a connection between S. 156th Street and S.W. 16th Street. The most significant change is the relocation, after the 1992 racing season, of the • Longacres racetrack, which has been a regional facility since 1933. It will be replaced by a Boeing Company development. 2. Factual evidence supports an additional or changed public need for the proposed designation. The applicant responds, "Applicant's project, which will serve the public as a place to exhibit products and interests, requires a large area parcel to accommodate the facility and this land adjoins 14.3 acres also in the proposed project site. Increase City revenue anticipated when complete.° The applicant's response does not address a changed or additional public need for the industrial land. 3. Analyze the 71kwila Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan and discuss the policies that relate the requested amendment The applicant responds, " The General Goal of the City of Tukwila Comprohcnsive Plan encourages City expansion using the land as best suited //o '• y Staff Report to the 90-2-CPA/90-2-R: McLeod Exhibition Facility Planning Commission Page 6 thereby developing a healthy economic climate while striking a balance with the environment. The use should consider the regional setting of Tukwila, but should meet the goals of the local citizens without stressing City services. The Exhibition Facility concept will increase City revenue with its increase in evaluation (sic). Its operation will provide jobs and income. Identified sensitive areas will be set aside as open space. And the site presently having general utility service will place minimal burden on City services. (pages 12 & 13)" The goals the applicant summarizes above are more specifically: Goal 2 (page 12) - the City should achieve a balance between regional goals and local aspirations ....Tukwila is an inseparable part of a larger region. Tukwila's policies should provide for the enhancement of regional goals. Go& 4 (page 12) - the City's plans should be coordinated with those of other jurisdictions. • The King County Comprehensive Plan designates the site as urban and not agricultural. The regional plan concludes that agriculture uses are most productive in large agricultural communities where there is a support network. The Plan focuses its efforts on conserving farmlands within designated Agricultural Districts in order to minimize conflicts between disparate uses. The City of Renton Comprehensive Plan designates the area around Longacres Racetrack as Commercial and the rest of the area surrounding the racetrack as Manufacturing Park/ Multiple Option. The Renton Plan also shows a proposed roadway connecting with Strander Boulevard. POLICY REVIEW Natural Environment Element General Goal 2 (page 15) "use and preserve the natural...resources of the physical environment in a wise and posterity oriented manner." Policy 4 (Page 25) Encourage the retention of agricultural lands. The policy comment further explains, "encourages the cultivation of valley soil for farming... discourages the premature displacement of existing farmlands." (underline added) Staff Report to the 90- 2- CPA/904-R: McLeod Exhibition Facility Planning Commission Page 7 Objective 2. (page 25) 'Promote the retention and preservation of highly suitable areas for wildlife habitat and natural area." Policy 1. (page 25) "Strive to retain viable areas of wooded hillsides, agricultural lands, wetlands, ..." Objective 4. (page 27) 'Realize the ability of natural ... marshes to handle storm runoff while acting as significant natural amenities." Commerce/Industry Element Policy 2, (page 60) "Allow foi`the location -of new'commercial and.industria_l;,areas'': and the expansion of existing. ones_when this expansion is compatible with surrounding land use and not detrimental to the public welfare." Objective 5. (page 66) "Recognize agriculture as an economic use of land." The comment following the objective says, "While the economic return on viable agricultural land is not as great as the return on an urban.use of the land, it • certainly has its place in the area's economy." . Policy -1, (page_66) "Encourage:the continuation of pr_aductive agricultural use of lanii until orderly conversion to urban usage occurs." "(underline added) The policy comment further explains, "It is recognized that much of the land in the Tukwila area will eventually give way to planned and orderly expansion of urban uses. However it would be desirable to maintain the land in a productive agricultural use until this conversion occurs." ' CONCLUSIONS 1. The removal of the Longacres racetrack "agricultural" use eliminates the need for an agricultural district in the area. Furthermore, the applicant is not now in an active agricultural use. Therefore the Open Space designation is not needed for agricultural purposes. 2. No programs or regulations have been implemented to preserve agricultural land within the City of Tukwila and the subject site's property owners have not entered the site into the Agricultural Assessment Program. Staff Report to the Planning Commission 90- 2- CPA/90 -2 -R: McLeod Exhibition Facility Page 8 3. Policy 1, page 66 anticipates conversion of and supports the requested redesignation form Parks and Open Space to urban uses. 4. The designation of light industrial is appropriate because the site lies between two railroad mainlines and is adjacent to a utility substation. When Strander is developed, the site will have limited access to the cross valley arterial because of topographical constraints of crossing the Burlington Northern railroad track. With construction of the Boeing Company facility, the property will be largely surrounded by commercial and industrial uses. 5. The City is committed to its Natural Environment Element policies through implementation of regulations preserving wetlands and other natural resources. Therefore retaining a Parks and Open Space designation for the wetland located on the southern section of the one parcel would be a consistent choice with the regulations regarding wetlands. It is not appropriate to designate all sensitive areas with a Parks and Open space designation. Because the subject wetland is a part of a much larger system that exists as an RA site, it makes sense to preserve the designation in this situation. 6. If Puget Power and City of Seattle Water parcels are not incorporated into the final map changes in the area, they will remain as isolated areas of Open Space and agricultural zonine. RECOMMENDATIONS The Planning Department recommends the Planning Commission adopt the above Findings and Conclusions and recommend approval of the Comprehensive Plan amendment and redesignate the map from Parks and Open Space and Public Facility to Light Industrial as shown on Attachment D. REZONE FINDINGS DECISION CRITERIA Criteria are listed below in italics followed by the applicant's response. The Planning Commission and City Council shall be guided by the following criteria in granting a zoning map reclassification. 1. The use of change in zoning requested shall be in conformity with the adopted Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan, the provisions of this title, and the public interest. JJ3 Staff Report to the Planning Commission 90- 2- CPA/90 -2 -R: McLeod Exhibition Facility Page 9 The applicant responds, "A Comprehensive plan revision is submitted with this • request. The request changes property to a commercial use similar to adjoining to the north, it can be served easily by City roads and utilities, provides in City industrial land presently in short supply, provides for highest and best land use while generating revenue for the City and a place for employment for a number of its population." If the Planning Commission recommends and the City Council approves the requested Comprehensive Plan Map redesignation per the above findings and conclusion, then the requested rezone would be in conformance with the Plan. 2. The use or change in zoning request in the zoning map or this title for the establishment of commercial, industrial or residential we shall be supported by an architectural size plan showing the proposed development and its relationship to surrounding areas. The applicant responds, 'The subject parcel is a portion of an overall project site plan which encompasses 23.45 acres on which the applicant.has proposed to construct an Exhibition Facility. The 9.15 acres will be used as a portion of the proposed parking lot. Areas which have been determined to apart of wetland #12 will be Left undeveloped in 'accordance with City Sensitive area review. Property to east and west are railroad lines,. to the north is M1 zoned property similar to that requested. To the south will be undeveloped wetlands." Attachment C is the applicant's proposed site plan. However the applicant will be required to revise the site plan per the SEPA comments and•undergo BAR review. Should the site not be developed by the applicant, any use allowed in the M -1 zone could be developed on the site subject to code requirements. A new use would also require a new SEPA review. SUPPLEMENTAL STATE SUPREME COURT REZONE CRITERIA TO BE CONSIDERED 3. Significant changes have occurred in the character, conditions or surrounding neighborhood that justify or otherwise substantiate the proposed rezone. The applicant responds, 'The transfer of the subject property to the City of Tukwila from the City of Renton in 1987 accommodates and processing of development requirements and utilities services. It also dictated that the use and development of the property necessitates that agency approval come from the City of Tukwila. Property for use in industrial zoning has become increasingly more Staff Report to the 90- 2- CPA/90 -2 -R: McLeod Exhibition Facility Planning Commission Page 10 scarce in the inner Metropolitan and this property or portion thereof which adjoins a similar use thus becomes logically available as its best use." Longacres, a major landmark in the area, will be relocating out of the neighborhood and pasture or other support uses for horses will no longer be necessary. According to the Comprehensive Plan, agricultural use designation while having a place within the community, was not to prevent eventual urbanization of land. The uses along West Valley Highway have redeveloped over the last five years from low intensity uses to more intensive commercial uses and this site would be the next contiguous parcels. 4. The proposed rezone it in the best interest of the public health, safety and welfare as compared to the hardship, such as diminution of property value, unposed on the individual property owner. The applicant responds, 'Previous to 1987 the property was zoned B1 (Business) in the City of Renton. Returning the property to a similar commercial use returns the property worth to a similar value. In turn allowing for the development of the usable portion of the property will increase the tax base .of the City thus its income generated. Zoning changed to similar to that of adjoining property allows for additional community jobs and services while at the same time increasing the base land area base for division of access construction costs to this property and that to north of same zoning. ie construction of S. 158th St. and UPRR to north of bridge and Strander extension for Fire and Police access." The uses_allowed in an_.RA zone . are limited torsingle family dwellings-on-and acre parcels,: agricultural uses' including' horticulture; 'nurseries; field' crops; breeding =and- raising livestock; fowl or fur bearing animals,•' and kennels "or riding stables; provided the use has a minimum of five acres!' These uses are not allowed elsewhere within the zoning code, so the opportunity for those uses such as riding stables and academies or polo fields, which would be a service to an urban population would be reduced. Several areas of RA remain within the City Limits - Foster Golf course, Fort Dent, and the area bounded on the north by 178th, on the east by 57th (Southcenter Pkwy) and the western and southern city limits X15 Staff Report to the 90- 2- CPA/90 -2 -R: McLeod Exhibition Facility Planning Commission Page 11 There is also a King County designated agricultural district located between the City's southern limits and the Kent limits. This district effectively is extended into Kent because of the agriculturally zoned lands within Kent and the limitation of urban services to the east side of the Green River. 5. The unimproved subject property is unsuitable for the purpose for which u has been zoned considered in the context of the length of rime the property has remained unimproved and land development in the surrounding area. The applicant's response: "The length of time in which the subject property (since 1987) does not have as much bearing on the property development as did the fact the property was within the City of Renton but the utilities and access were most accommodating from the City of Tukwila. The property probably should have been zoned as M1 in Tukwila which wold have been some what similar to the Renton business zone but would have been compatible with the adjoining Tukwila zoning, however the Glacier Park Co previous Owners "rep., failed to follow -up on the City boundary change notices. The jurisdiction of property now within the City of Tukwila sets the stage for best use of the property." The access and physical characteristics are as instrumental as the zoning in the developed versus undeveloped nature of this property. Adjacent properties are being redeveloped and this site would be a logical extension of that development. CONCLUSIONS 1. If the Comprehensive Plan designation is changed, then the rezone would be in conformance with the Plan. 2. The site plan, Attachment C, shows the compatibility of the proposed development to the type of surrounding uses. 3. The relocation of Longacres, a major regional attraction and and use element of the neighborhood, is an unforseen change that significantly impacts the area. In addition, agricultural zoning for the site, given the change that has occurred around the site and the adjacent zoning and development, is inappropriate and would appear to be a hardship imposed on the property owner. 4. M1, Light Industrial zoning, would be an extension of the Ml district north of the subject site (Attachment B). 5. The M1 (Light Industrial) zoning would be more appropriate given the land's history in Renton, and the lack of farming on the site or in the vicinity. 1/6. 1 1 Staff Report to the 90- 2- CPA/90 -2 -R: McLeod Exhibition Facility Planning Commission RECOMMENDATIONS Page 12 The Planning Division recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the findings and conclusions of the staff report and: 1. Recommend approval of the rezone from RA (Agricultural) to M1 (Light Industrial) for that area outside the Type 1 wetland; 2. Recommend to the City Council a public hearing before the City Council when considering the subject request in order to include the Seattle Water and Puget Power property in the redesignation and rezone; 3. Completion of the following SEPA mitigating measures prior to recording ordinance to change the zoning: a. an agreement to dedicate the necessary right -of -way for the Strander extension and to not protest formation of a road LID, b. dedicated access to the site, and c. consolidation of the two parcels or dedicating access to both parcels. S /Of NOI.LdO 31dI.L10W E CD 0NI8fl,L3V3f1NVW %J1 J L_J 1VI3d3WW03 1133N33H0 NO.LN314 .J0 A.LI3 A NOCVER S3I.LI1I3V3 3IlUld '1 V I d,LSf10NI 1110I1 1VI3113WW03 PARK E7S7 33VdS N3d0 I S71HVd V1IM)1fl,L J0 A.LI3 r VALLEY ,4Cf.1^17,7%;.-170,170tt," '01Y .07/P, 7,17ra,941102:-RoVArrti. .. ..•••=biras • Co. . . Acros. CS ••7 CHNENT: 1 2 N 0 111 Z "0 AMOR PARK WEST ah • • d Erna Erin, PARK EA rs• 1 0 ANDOVER r vALLEY OW RR IMITS z -2. 1.01111.11"1111.1 11111111111 Woo" Pacific R R • • • • • • • • • • Nov Co. RR 11, .1., • . -1 • • 1•51 , • • x m z CA RENTON.0 03 ----- ----- - ono acres . fams. Tic* ATTACHMENT B 1 �'S��• —T twn t.1 RLf114 .V hl� [ e.COUw. cov.La Tva. uac I +1.ALo 9n0,011 llaa T.., L MNw(. QUAD ItL Rr..M1au1�0 1✓ , r ryj111M 6CA1. 9waL.L ��_ OTVf - ,wl. \r_ pact 1'• d ellr 1r 1.1.11• 1 Lr � • ,iI :11i .MM •.w1 ...LP. Go «c, oa%vt TY P. .rp�tTa \AN LOR[tA001•. PARTIAL !1T[ PLAN wo% «A •lot�.T.a..�M f aaa.0ot WI... AA 0115.6«RO OR Ar\w to aal IYR C \" M lYL UMO 1 feria i a• ..1411.1% r1C...C.ta.. error .a. .ft •1, ten, .•1. as ■ O 0 z 2 a .j O .-I W p O_ W m 2 w • • C' run..,aa tar G. or we Arm, 2‘; c)A r .I PARKS AP OPEN SPACE / RA q0la '4. • " . a.. •-• • • a r• : ••■■•:.. • - • - = 1JGHT INDUSTRY / 1.4-1 PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING ATTACHMENT D lal EPIC-26 -90: MCLEOD EXHIBITION FACILITY Comprehensive Plan Change and Rezone Mitigating Measures 1. Pay for the update of the Nelson /Longacres Storm Drainage Plan to include the area of the Comprehensive Plan change at highest and best use. 2. Sign and record no protest L.I.D.. agreements for storm, sanitary and water improvements for area. 3. Record 60 foot wide access easements from eastern terminus of Strander Boulevard to site, providing continuation of Strander Boulevard and access to subject properties. 4. Consolidate separate tax parcels and or .provide 60 foot dedicated right of way to all parcels within rezone site. 5. A signed and recorded agreement not to protest L.I.D. formation for Strander right -of -way extension improvements and to dedicate the necessary right -of -way. ATTACHMENT E / 02oz Several areas of RA remain within thr ' „ty Limits - Foster Golf course, Fort Dent, and thr -ea bounded on the north by 178th, on thb..,.st by 57th (Southcenter Pkwy) and the eastern an . . southern city limits. There is also a King County designated agricultural district located between the City's southern limits and the Kent limits. This district effectively is extended into Kent because of the agriculturally zoned lands within Kent and the limitation of urban services from Kent to the east side of the Goren River. 5. The unimproved subject property is unsuitable for the purpose for which it has been zoned considered in the context of the length of time the property has remained unimproved and land development in the surrounding area. The access and physical characteristics are as instrumental as the zoning in the developed versus undeveloped nature of this property. Adjacent properties are being redeveloped and this site would be a logical extension of that development. REZONE CONCLUSIONS 1. if the Comprehensive Plan designation is changed, then the rezone would be in conformance with the Plan. 2. C -2 zoning will be an appropriate zone for the site when Strander Boulevard is extended. 3. The relocation of Longacres, a major regional attraction and land use element of the neighborhood. is an unforsecn change that significantly impacts the area. 4. Agricultural zoning for the site, given the change that has occurred around the site and the adjacent zoning and development, is inappropriate and would appear to be a hardship imposed on the property owner. DECISION. The City Council approves the Comprehensive Plan amendment and rezone applications as modified to Commercial and C -2 for all but the area containing the type one wetland and its buffer including the Seattle Water and Puget Power parcels, with the following conditions: '1. The applicant shall pay for an update of the Nelson/Longacres Storm Drainage Plan to include the area of change at its highest and best use. 2. The applicant shall sign and record no protest L.I.D. agreements for storm, sanitary and water improvements for the area. 3 The applicant shall record sufficient easement as determined by Tukwila Public Works Department from the eastern terminus of Strander Boulevard to site, providing continuation of Strander Boulevard and access to subject properties. 4. The applicant shall consolidate his separate tax parcels and or provide 60 foot dedicated right - of -way to all parcels within rezone site. 5.The applicant shall sign and record an agreement to dedicate a 60 foot future road easement across property to provide for extension of Strander Boulevard into the City of Renton and dedicate the necessary right -of -way when requested by the City. Applicant also agrees not to protest L.I.D. formation for Strander right -of -way extension improvements. Exhibit A Page 6 1.77A -C.N t66✓7 ¢. February 12, 1991 TSI Thutslortation Solutions Inc. 16710 NE 79th Stmt. Suite 201 Rodmond,WVA 98052 -1466 (206) 883 -1131 FAX: 867.0893 To: Mr. Stuart McLeod The McLeod Group 213 Lake Street Kirkland, WA 98033 From: David Markley Robert Crittenden Subject: International Boat Show Parking Demand Study Thank you for asking Transportation Solutions, Inc, (TSI) to conduct a parking demand study for the International Boat Show held at the Kingdome in Seattle in January 1992. This letter summarizes the findings of this study, including both the actual person count data and the parking survey results. Scope of Study The principle purpose of this study was to define the peak parking demand on a peak weekday and a peak weekend day. The secondary purpose was to determine variations in average vehicle occupancy, mode choice and parking cost. The parking demand study was conducted over two days: Friday, January 24 and Saturday, January 25, during the Boat Show at the Kingdome. Eleven workers were included in the study, six workers counting people exiting and entering the Boat Show, and five workers conducting surveys. The study was conducted over all hours of operation, 12 Noon to 10 PM on Friday, and 10 AM to 10 PM on Saturday. Survey workers were in place 30 minutes prior to the event opening to capture people arriving early. Workers were located at all public and exhibitor exits and entrances to the show, and counted all persons entering or exiting the show. The counts were broken down into 15 minute intervals to ensure an accurate reflection of peaks in attendance. Employee entrances and exits were not monitored, as this would distort the results of the analysis. Workers were also located at the two tickets sales booths to survey persons entering the show regarding parking characteristics. Four questions were asked in the survey: 1) How did you travel here today? (car, bus, bike, walk, etc.); 2) Including yourself, how many people traveled here in the car ?; 3) Did you park in the Kingdome lot, or if not, approximately how far away did you park ?; and 4) How much did you pay to park ?. Results The results of the survey are reflected on Attachments 1 -5. The discussion of these results has been organized to discuss weekdays and weekend days separately, and they are summarized below. Friday 1/24/92 The total number of people entering the Boat Show on Friday was 10,385. The peak accumulation of people inside the Kingdome was equal to 3,729, and occurred at 7:45 to 8:00 PM. (�7 Mr. Stuart McLeod February 12, 1991 Page 2 There were 504 surveys taken on this day. © f this number, 471 people traveled to the site by car, which is equal to 93.5 percent of th-�+t ldance. The average vehicle occupancy for the day was 2.14 persons per car. 434 pe sb s (86 percent) parked in the Kingdome lot, or within 2 blocks of the Kingdome. The a'erage amount paid for parking was $3.52. Based on a mode split to car of 93.5 percen and an average vehicle occupancy of 2.14 persons per vehicle, the peak parking deman yer uld be equal to 1,628 cars at 8:00 PM. t; Saturday 1/25/91 o' �S? The total number of people entering the Boa>{ Show on Saturday was 18,461. The peak accumulation of people inside the Kingdome was equal to 8,158, and occurred at 2:00 to 2:15 PM. =. There were 637 surveys taken on this day. Of this number, 579 people traveled to the site by car, which is equal to 91.0 percent of the :attendance. The - average vehicle occupancy for the day was 2.58 persons per car. 511 persons (80 percent) parked in the Kingdome lot, or within 2 blocks of the Kingdome. The average amount paid for parking was $3.20. Based on a mode split to car of 91.0 percent and an average vehicle occupancy of 2.58 persons per vehicle, the peak parking demand would be equal to 2,874 cars at 2 :00 PM. Parking Demand •' Using the results of this survey, an estimate Can be made of the parking demand of the Boat Show if it were located at the proposedExhibition Facility in Tukwila. If the mode split to the automobile is assumed to be 100 percent (no one travels to the site via bus, taxi, walking, etc.), and the average vehicle occupancy is assumed to remain the same as that at the Kingdome, the worst case parking'demand can be calculated. On a Friday, the parking demand would be equal to 1,743 vehicles. If a ten percent increase is factored in for circulation, parking inefficiency and employee parking, then the final parking demand is equal to 1,917 vehicles. On a Saturday, the parking demand would be equal j� al to 3,162 vehicles. With a ten percent inefficiency factor, the final number is 3,4781veliicles. 1 Other Information In addition to the four questions on the survey, eneral comments on the parking situation were also solicited. This resulted in three common comments on the Kingdome parking situation: 1) the price of parking is too expesiye; 2) the parking spaces are too small; and 3) the parking lot attendants help to make die pa%king easier and more efficient. A fifth survey question was added Saturday., ii ch stated: If, for a $2.00 fee, you could park all day within 1/2 to 1 mile, with a free,' huttle bus ride to and from the Kingdome, would you use this method? This questions' as added to the survey later, thus there were only 340 total responses. Of this sample size, 6 percent of those responding said they would use a shuttle, 26 percent said they would: ot, and 12 percent were undecided. I trust that this information provides you with initial data to determine the necessary parking demand at the Exhibition Facility in' wila. After you have reviewed this data, it may be best to meet to discuss the resultso the study, and to formulate a strategy for responding to this parking supply issue. If g ulihave any questions or require additional clanfication, please contact our office at yotlr convenience. 2/7 i31 Transportation Solutions Inc. 3�7 ATTACHMENT 1 BOAT SHOW CUMULATIVE ATTENDANCE FRIDAY 1/24/92 SATURDAY 1/25/92 TOTAL TOTAL CUMULATIVE TOTAL TOTAL CUMULATIVE TIME IN OUT TOTAL TIME IN OUT TOTAL 12:00 - 12:15 PM 1081 0 1081 10:00 - 10:15 AM 1535 0 1535 12:15 - 12:30 PM 448 16 1513 10:15 - 10:30 AM 770 14 2291 12:30 - 12:45 AM 427 18 1922 10:30 - 10:45 AM 522 12 2801 12:45 - 1:00 PM 402 20 2304 10 :45 - 11:00 AM 619 23 3397 1:00 - 1:15 PM 366 44 2626 11 :00 - 11:15 AM 641 31 4007 1:15 - 1:30 PM 323 57 2892 11:15 - 11:30 AM 571 30 4548 1:30 - 1:45 PM 274 77 3089 11:30 - 11:45 AM 620 68 5100 1:45 - 2:00 PM 236 128 3197 11:45 - 12:00 PM 624 95 5629 2:00 - 2:15 PM 294 150 3341 12:00 - 12:15 PM 540 132 6037 2:15 - 2:30 PM 290 151 3480 12:15 - 12:30 PM 527 144 6420 2:30 - 2:45 PM 232 215 3497 12:30 - 12:45 AM 473 238 6655 2:45 - 3:00 PM 203 178 3522 12:45 - 1:00 PM 633 268 7020 3:00 - 3 :15 PM 267 202 3587 1 1:00 - 1:15 PM 638 266 7392 3:15 - 3:30 PM 208 251 3544 1:15 - 1:30 PM 615 425 7582 3:30 - 3 :45 PM 196 235 3505 1:30 - 1:45 PM 569 401 7750 3:45 - 4:00 PM 203 236 3472 1:45 - 2:00 PM 531 345 7936 4:00 - 4:15 PM 238 236 3474 2:00 - 2:15 PM 552 330 8158 4:15 - 4:30 PM 232 273 3433 2:15 - 2:30 PM 354 466 8046 4:30 - 4:45 PM 214 254 3393 2:30 - 2:45 PM 582 488 8140 4:45 - 5:00 PM 184 254 3323 2:45 - 3:00 PM 447 625 7962 5 :00 - 5 :15 PM 263 246 3340 3:00 - 3:15 PM 549 447 8064 5:15 - 5:30 PM 281 263 3358 3:15 - 3:30 PM 382 584 7862 5 :30 - 5:45 PM 271 302 3327 3:30 - 3:45 PM 436 625 7673 5:45 - 6:00 PM 315 248 3394 3:45 - 4:00 PM 314 667 7320 6:00 - 6 :15 PM 269 239 3424 4:00 - 4:15 PM 348 615 7053 6:15 - 6:30 PM 269 243 3450 4:15 - 4:30 PM 397 617 6833 6:30 - 6 :45 PM 356 308 3498 4:30 - 4:45 PM 308 652 6489 6:45 - 7:00 PM 283 300 3481 4:45 - 5:00 PM 279 636 I 6132 7:00 - 7:15 PM 424 321 3584 5:00 - 5:15 PM 296 509 5919 7:15 - 7:30 PM 297 246 3635 5:15 - 5 :30 PM 254 570 5603 7:30 - 7 :45 PM 302 210 3727 5:30 - 5:45 PM 289 503 5389 7:45 - 8:00 PM 264 262• 3729 5:45 - 6:00 PM 210 606 4993 8 :00 - 8:15 PM 198 238 3689 6:00 - 6 :15 PM 249 500 4742 8:15 - 8:30 PM 111 304 3496 6:15 - 6:30 PM 263 563 4442 8:30 - 8:45 PM 95 236 3355 6:30 - 6:45 PM 269 387 4324 8:45 - 9 :00 PM 52 297 3110 6:45 - 7:00 PM 179 606 3897 9:00 - 9:15 PM 9 379 2740 7:00 - 7:15 PM 254 352 3799 9:15 - 9:30 PM 4 407 2337 7:15 - 7:30 PM 245 440 3604 9 :30 - 9 :45 PM 4 528 1813 7:30 - 7:45 PM 176 333 3447 9:45 - 10:00 PM 0 466 1347 7:45 - 8:00 PM 105 418 3134 TOTAL 10385 9457 8 :00 - 8:15 PM 147 357 2924 8:15 - 8:30 PM 76 390 2610 8:30 - 8:45 PM 27 370 2267 8 :45 - 9:00 PM 38 365 1940 9:00 - 9:15 PM 1 351 1590 ' 9 :15 - 9:30 PM 2 353 1239 9 :30 - 9:45 PM 2 312 929 9:45 - 10:00 PM 3 353 579 TOTAL 18461 18.462 500 tm 450 •=. 400 350 a 300 2 250 °- 200 15' '6 150 100 50 0 471 CAR 600 579 c 500 g 400 I/2 300 200 E 100 CAR ATTACHMENT 2 How did you travel here today? 20 9 4 BUS WALK FRIDAY 1/24/92 (504 RESPONSES) How did you travel here today? 19 25 BUS WALK SATURDAY 1/25/92 (637 RESPONSES) TAXI 14 TAXI <11 7 ATTACHMENT 3 Including yourself, how many people traveled here in the car? 250 — 240 spa • 200 c) ca o 150 0 co 9- eL 1 00 0 E • 50 z 300 — ts) .E 250 cs) 2 200 — cr, y2 150 E .1111 50—. Z 0 92 75 46 12 6 OTHER ALONE TWO THREE FOUR FIVE >FIVE FRIDAY 1/24/92 (504 RESPONSES) Including yourself, how many people traveled here in the car? 55 49 256 102 124 34 17 OTHER ALONE TWO THREE FOUR SATURDAY 1/25/92 (637 RESPONSES) FIVE >FIVE s-/7 ATTACHMENT 4 Did you park in the Kingdome lot, or if not, approximately how far away did you park? 350 - rn •� 300 m c 250 - R 0 200 - N L. n• 150 - 0 100 50 - 32 z 0 321 113 13 13 4 350 rn •9 300 2 250 co EN 200 0 a 150 - .100 50 z 0 8 OTHER LOT 2 3 4 5 >5 BLOCK BLOCK BLOCK BLOCK BLOCK FRIDAY 1/24/92 (504 RESPONSES) Did you park in the Kingdome lot, or if not, approximately how far away did you park? 350 57 161 27 26 .OTHER LOT 2 3 4 5 BLOCK BLOCK BLOCK BLOCK SATURDAY 1/25/92 (637 RESPONSES) 13 >5 BLOCK L/, 250 — rn 'm 200 Vl co cn 150 0 cn a' 100 0 m 50 250 — rn '3 . 200 cc cn 150 0 cn a. 0. 100 0 g 50 z 110 2 ATTACHMENT 5 How much did you pay to park? 14 6 244 121 $0.00 $1.00 $2.00 $3.00 $4.00 $5.00 FRIDAY 1/24/92 (504 RESPONSES) 183 $0.00 How much did you pay to park? 203 211 $1.00 $2.00 $3.00 $4.00 $5.00 SATURDAY 1/25/92 (637 RESPONSES) >$5.00 23 >$5.00 7/7 FILE REFERENCE: EPIC -26 -90 THRESHOLD DETERMINATION: Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW RECORD 10 September 1990 Environmental Checklist including: Wetland Evaluation and Delineation Report 14 August 1990 David Markley, TSI Memo 14 September 1990 Utility Plans C -1 - C -8 May 1990 Floor Plan and Elevations S -1 S -3 (no date) Union Pacific Railroad Bridge Replacement Concept May 1990 27 February 1991 Pedestrian Routes August 1990 Revised Exhibition Facility Elevations (no date) 1 March 1991 Exhibition Facility Floor Plan Schematics 4 March 1991 Photographic and Perspective Analysis of Site 10 April 1991 Exhibition Center Traffic Analysis by TSI 3. May 1991 Wetlands Evaluation and Delineation Report/ Wetlands Avoidance and Mitigation Plan 11 July 1991 Gary Schulz, Urban Environmentalist record 28 May 1991 Ron Cameron TSI Report memo 27 June 1991 TSI response memo 26 July 1991 Ron'Cameron, City Engineer Memo 1 August 1991 Gary Schulz, Urban Environmentalist Memo 23 August 1991 GeoEngineers Report 30 September 1991 Letter from Don Miles with TSI memo attached. 9 October 1991 TSI Fax of Volumes 11 August 1986 Interlocal Agreement between Renton and Tukwila APPROVALS AND PERMIT REQUIREMENTS: * Planning Commission Recommendation and City Council Ordinance that redesignates and rezones southernmost parcel (Tax Lot 252304 -9006) from Open Space and RA to Industrial and M -1 respectively. * Planning Commission approval for parking lot improvements. • Cooperative Parking Agreement approval by Planning Commission or Zoning Code parking requirement variance. * Utility permits including land altering, flood zone control, hauling, sewer, water, storm drain. * Building permit. BACKGROUND The subject site is composed of 4 separate parcels, with two separate owners. Off site parking is proposed on the Puget Power right -of -way located west of the development site. FINDINGS CHECKLIST ITEMS: 1. Earth Applicant submitted a geotechnical report which states that site contamination is relatively low due to its undeveloped character and that the structure should be supported with piles. Liquefaction potential is moderate to high and that recommended design and construction procedures will mitigate some of the liquefaction potential. The site is generally flat with a slight slope from south to north except for the extreme southernmost portion of the site. The area is considered a seismic hazard area with newberg silt loam, puget silty clay loam and woodenville silt loam as well as areas of fill that are unclassified. Applicant proposes filling for pavement and building locations which is 90 percent of the site. 2. Air Emissions from construction vehicles and dust are expected. After construction, emissions from vehicles traveling to site will increase. 3. Water The applicant has retained Watershed Dynamics to delineate the wetlands on site and assess the impact of the development on these areas. There are 4 type .3 wetlands north of S. 158th Street (Attachment B) and 2 wetlands south of S. 158th Street one of which is a type 2 (Attachment C) and the other a type 1 (Attachment D). The largest wetland, along the site's southern boundary, is part of a larger type 1 wetland; 1.68 acres of which is located on the subject site. The type 2 wetland is located adjacent to the building site and is not shown as retained. However, the Zoning Code's sensitive area overlay zone will require retention and a 50 foot buffer. Per the regulations of the sensitive area overlay zone, the applicant proposes filling the type 3 wetlands. The applicant would then be responsible for creating 150 percent (1.5:1) or 1.03 acres of additional wetlands (they only proposed 1.3:1). The compensatory mitigation is proposed adjacent to the existing type 1 area. A 100 foot buffer is the standard but the applicant requests a reduction of 50% as allowed, with an enhancement plan for the buffer area. A fifty foot buffer with the proposed enhancement and an approved mitigation plan would be acceptable. The storm drainage capacity for the Nelson /Longacres Drainage Basin 1� was designed based on a 60 percent impervious coverage and highest and best use. The applicant is proposing a rezone of agriculturally zoned land and 90 percent impervious surface. Therefore detention will be required on site. The applicant shows a wet pond for detention at the north end of the site but must provide calculations to demonstrate capacity and quality standards are met. Per item 4 of the interlocal with Renton (A&C file # 86 -0555/ 8 -11- 86), drainage from the site has a right to connect to and use the P -1 channel. 4. Plants Portions of the site has been used for pasture and parking and most recently as a fill site. There are therefore a variety of pasture grasses interspersed with wetland plants and mature deciduous trees. A tree inventory has been done and the majority of significant vegetation will be removed to accommodate the building site and parking area. 5. Animals Because of the site's undeveloped character and the wetlands located on and around the site, hawk use and rodent habitat will be lost in areas to be developed with parking and building. 6. Energy and Natural Resources There is a petroleum pipeline that traverses the southern section of the site. Otherwise electricity and natural gas are available to the site. 7. Land Use The site is bordered on three sides by transportation corridors. In addition, Puget Sound Power and Light Company has a right -of -way which parallels the site just west of the Union Pacific railroad track. Otherwise there is a combination of commercial and industrial uses west of the site towards West Valley Highway. East of the Burlington Northern tracks, in the City of Renton, is a thoroughbred race track that has recently been purchased by the Boeing Company for a suburban office development. The site is primarily pasture that has been ditched along the east and west sides to encourage drainage. The area to the north and south of an extension of S. 158th Street has been used as gravel parking area for Longacres Traffic. The area encompassing and south of the City of Seattle water line has been on the City's 1982 Comprehensive Land Use Plan as Open space with the exception of a strip. of Public Facilities corresponding with an extension of Strander Boulevard to the Renton city limits. North of that water line the area is designated Light Industrial. The zoning corresponds to the designations, RA and M -1 respectively. 8. Aesthetics According to the most recent documentation from the applicant, dated March 4, 1991, the structure will be 45 feet in height at the ridge line of the pitched roof per the site and area section dated March 1991. The concept also shows a straight sided 810 foot long by 230 foot wide structure with pedestrian openings at the north and south ends with no wall relief and minimal fenestration. Exhibition loading is shown all sides. On March 6, 1991, the applicant provided a visual analysis of views of the site from surrounding vantage points. The analysis consisted primarily of photographs, which demonstrated that parts of the structure would be visible from off -site. Per TMC 18.56.040, any on- premise parking area which contains stalls located more than one thousand feet from the principal use requires Board of Architectural Review approval for the entire lot. There are 2100 surface parking stalls proposed on site, some of which are located more than 1,000 feet from the exhibition facility. 9. Recreation The Interurban Trail extension is proposed for the Puget Power right -of -way in 1992. The preferred trail route will continue along the power line right of way to I -405 head east to the I -405 bridge over the railroad tracks, cross under I -405 and on to Fort Dent Park. The trail will be a minimum of 12 feet wide with 2 foot • shoulders on each side. The applicant proposes leasing right of way from Puget Power to provide off -site parking for the facility; therefore the applicant's parking lot will need to be adjusted to incorporate the trail. The project could also impact the trail as it attempts to cross over and under the I -405 bridge at the north edge of the proposed parking area and proposed wet pond. 10. Transportation As was mentioned previously, the site is bounded on three sides by elevated transportation corridors, I -405, and the UP and BN railroad tracks. Current access to the site is from the west via West Valley Highway on S. 158th Street and an extension of Strander Boulevard. The applicant proposes extending Strander Boulevard as a private road from West Valley Highway to the site with an at grade crossing at the Strander intersection. Strander Boulevard has been in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan and Transportation Improvement Plan as a future east west connector. Item 2 of the interlocal agreement with Renton (A &C file 86 -055/ 8- 11 -86) specified that development review shall insure that appropriate connection is allowed. The other access point is under the UP railroad track at the end of S. 158th Street. Widening of the bridge at S. 158th Street to allow 4 versus 2 lanes is proposed. S. 158th Street public right - of -way stops at the west margin of the Puget Power right -of -way. Therefore approval from the property owner of Tax Parcel 242304003- is necessary for access and road improvements to the exhibition site. Both the Cities of Tukwila and Renton have added the Tukwila Parkway (156th Street) / 16th Avenue connections to their Transportation Improvement Plans, which would cross a proposed parking area in the north end of the subject site. Transportation Solutions, Inc. was retained by the applicant to identify and assess the impacts to the existing transportation system and to make recommendations for road and intersection improvements and parking and pedestrian needs. The Zoning Code (TMC 18.56.050) requires exhibition halls to' be provided with 1 parking stall for every 4 persons based on the occupancy load of the building. The 250,000 square foot floor area creates a Uniform Building Code occupancy of 16,666 and a parking requirement of 4,166. A code on -site parking deficit of 2100 exists. The transportation consultant has indicated the character of the facility is not defined by its size but by the mix of tenants it will serve. The zoning code allows the Planning Commission to approve cooperative parking agreements for facilities with a mix of uses. The TSI traffic report calculates demand exceeding the 2100 parking capacity on 26 days. All but 3 of those days occur on Saturday or Sunday and the remaining 3 experiencing peak in the evening. The report recommends multiple transportation demand management techniques to minimize traffic impacts and parking demands. 11. Utilities There are multiple utility lines which traverse the property: oil, natural gas, water, sewer, cable television, and telephone. Parking is shown on top of these lines. The soft soils and are a concern as special construction techniques may be necessary to protect lines from loads. CONCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS Issuance of a mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance is recommended for the project because adverse environmental impacts can be reduced below a level of probable significance. Due to the multiple requests within the proposal, the mitigating measures are separated and listed for the nonproject action of the Comprehensive Plan Change and Rezone request and then for the development of the Exhibition Facility and attendant improvements. Comprehensive Plan Change and Rezone Mitigating Measures 1. Pay for the update of the Nelson /Longacres Storm Drainage Plan to include the area of the Comprehensive Plan change at highest and best use. 2. Sign and record no protest L.I.D. agreements for storm, sanitary and water improvements for area. 3. Record 60 foot wide access easements from eastern terminus of Strander Boulevard to site, providing continuation of Strander Boulevard and access to subject properties . ( m4AA. psP eo.I,eA r 4. Consolidate separate tax parcels and or provide 60 foot dedicated right of way to all parcels within rezone site. 5. A signed and recorded agreement not to protest L.I.D. formation for Strander right -of -way extension improvements and to dedicate the necessary right -of -way. Exhibition Facility Mitigating Measures 6. Board of Architectural Review application, review and approval. The site plan must show the following minimums: a. surface water interim and final systems constructed per the King County Surface Water (1990) as supplemented by Tukwila, to include biofiltration and approved by the Tukwila Department; designed and Design Manual detention and Public Works b. parking aisles that are oriented perpendicular to the building's north and south entrances; c. expansion of the Type 1 wetland to accommodate 1.5:1 compensatory mitigation for filling Type 3 wetlands and preservation of Type 2 wetland and buffer; d. landscaping that provides definition of pedestrian walks, shade, and visual relief for facility visitors of massive parking areas and that complements building; landscape islands 7.5 feet wide between every ten parking stalls. e. incorporation of 12 foot asphalt trail and 2 foot shoulders on Puget Power right -of -way; f. incorporation of Interurban Trail along north property line; g. incorporation of significant stands of trees h. logical pedestrian aisles that are treated with landscaping and lead to facility entrances. i. 158th and Strander will be treated as entrances to the site and will be landscaped to highlight their roles. j. break -up building facades with color , lines and massing to create interest and a balanced architectural design. Materials shall be compared with quality of adjacent new commercial developments. k. areas for trash, building services, mechanical equipment and event loading will be identified and screened using landscaping where possible or decorative hard materials where not. 1. create a luminare plan that creates a night -time design for structure. Light standards shall complement design of structure, and have several scales to proved for pedestrian, building and site lighting. 7. Cooperative Parking Application with inclusion of proposal for specific transportation demand management and off -site parking agreements per the recommendation of TSI, Inc. 8. ,Transportation improvements or commitments to be provided with a itovii • 'the BAR submittal (or building permit, if applicable) ands- - include the following: a. The following funds to be used for either capacity or intersection improvements $ 185,000 dollars for Interurban /Grady /405 ramp intersection; $43,000 for W. Valley /S. 156th Street intersection; $47,000 for the W. Valley /S. 158th Street intersection; $30,000 for the W. Valley/ Strander intersection; and $38,853 for the W. Valley/ S. 180th Street improvement cost. b. One half of a fair share contribution paid to the City of Renton prior to issuance of building permit and the other half .. prior to issuance of the facility's certificate of occupancy for the cost of off -site road improvements in the City of Renton corridors used by traffic generated by the proposed project. Fair share shall be based on the average peak hour trip generation and distribution documented in the TSI traffic analysis. The proportional share shall be determined by: 1) a formula involving project traffic volumes divided by the capacity increase generated by the new improvements multiplied by the cost of the improvements as recommended by the Renton Valley Transportation Plan Update or 2) on the same off -site trip end fee or other basis applied to other new development or redevelopment for off -site assessment of road improvements recommended by the Valley Transportation Plan update. The total amount will not exceed $200,000 and the total amount plus interest shall be refunded within six years of issuance of building permit if not spent to correct identified impacts. If adoption of the Renton Valley Transportation Plan update occurs after issuance of building permit or certificate of occupancy, any surplus of funds (over calculated mitigation) on deposit with the City of Renton shall be refunded to the applicant. c. S. 158th Street improved to public standards from the Embassy Suites section to the Exhibition Facility site. The drainage in pipes underneath the railroad bridge will need to be replaced with a box culvert section. Sidewalk widths on S. 158th shall include additional evaluation and documentation of peak pedestrian flows or pedestrian peak hour factors including an evaluation of maximum width sidewalk that can be provided. A sidewalk wider than 8 feet will be provided if possible; d. Strander Boulevard between W. Valley Highway and the Exhibition Facility will need to provide for safe pedestrian and vehicle traffic movement. Approval of the proposed improvements with sidewalks, four lanes, drainage, lighting and traffic control is required. e. If a multi -modal or commuter transit facility is developed on the north side of I -405 or on a site adjacent to the Exhibition facility, then property owners will provide access between the Exhibition Facility and Metro facility for pedestrians, for vehicles and for joint parking use, if agreed to by Tukwila. 9. Easement agreements shall be for life of project and be from: a. Puget Power for use of their property for parking improvements. b. Property owners of all parcels that are necessary to allow access, construction of road and perpetual parking. c. Property owners on all parcels, for life of the exhibition building, for parking and through access and utilities to service the subject facility. d. Union Pacific railroad to allow bridge construction at S. 158th street extension and at -grade crossing at Strander extension. e. Property owners of all parcels with ditches, swales and detention that convey "public" surface water for City of Tukwila, access, so the City can maintain the system conveying "public" surface water or agreement from the owners to maintain the system to City standards and a hold harmless agreement regarding surface waters which flow through properties. 10. Letters of acknowledgement from Olympic pipeline, Seattle Water, and Metro sewer regarding proposed construction location on site plan with respect to their facilities with BAR submittal. 11. A gate valve the looped system where it connects on S. 158th Street to mitigate the different pressures in the system. ,'r/AC 1 ?7- 11.970 MODIFIED MITIGATED DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANC£ Description of Proposal 1) Change Comprehensive Plan Designation from Open Space and Public Facility to Llght Industrial. 2) Rezone from RA to M -1. 3) Develop a 230,000 square foot exhibition facility for uses described in Transportation Analysis on a 23 acre site with attendant accesory improvements. Proponent - -- Stuart McLeod & Don Miles Location of Proposal, including street address, if any* Generally bounded on the north by I -405, on the east by Burlington Northern Railroad (BN) tracks, on the west by Union Pacific R.R. (UP) tracks & on the south by a lot line 600' S. of an extension of Strander Blvd. A portion of the. Puget Power R -0 -W be fen2W. Valley Hwy., & UPRR 158th St. & Strander. Lead Agency: City of ukwila File No. The lead agency for this proposal has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public on request. There is no comment period for this DNS issued under WAC 197- 11- 340(2)(f). (j This DNS is issued under 197 -11- 340(2). Comments must be submitted by . The lead agency will not act on this proposal for 15 days from the date below. Responsible Official Rick Beeler Position /Title Planning Director Phone 433 -1846 Address �j 6200 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila 98188 Date U 2 /pr' Signature You may appeal this determination to the City Clerk at City Hall, 6200 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 no later than 10 days from the above date by written appeal stating the basis of the appeal for specific factual objections. You may be required to bear some of the expenses for-an appeal. Copies of the procedures for SEPA appeals are available with the City Clerk and Planning Department. FM.DNS * (1) & (2) are proposed for two tax parcels located in the southern section of the site described above. ►t1.unass4m&r..1',rS.;C:.',f ��'�]�•.'•l� ^. " "�'Spp`^4� CITY OF TUKWILA . 6200 SOUTHCENTER BOULEVARD, TUKWILA, WASHINGTON 98188 PHONE # (206) 433.1800 Gary L. VanDuscn, Mayor CITY OF TUKWILA MITIGATED DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE MODIFIED (Modifications are shown in bold) PROJECT: McLeod Exhibition Facility DATE: October 1991 PROPOSAL: For two parcels, tax lots 000580 -0021 and 2523049006, which total 9.15 acres; (Attachment A): 1. Change Comprehensive Plan Designation from Open Space and Public Facility to Light Industrial LOCATION: 2. Rezone from RA to M -1 For 4 parcels, tax lots 242304 -9034 and 000580 -0013 (and possibly 0004) and 000580- 0021 and 252304 -9006, which total 23.45 acres and the Puget Power right of way north of. Strander Boulevard if extended and south of S. 158th Street if extended: 3. On a 23 acre site, develop a 230,000 square foot exhibition facility and attendant accessory improvements, for uses as described in transportation analysis. Generally bounded on the north by I -405, on the east by Burlington Northern Railroad (BN) tracks, on the west by Union Pacific Railroad (UP) tracks and on the south by a lot line 600 feet south of an extension of Strander Boulevard. A portion of the Puget Power Right -of -Way between West Valley Highway, and UPRR 158th Street and Strander Boulevard is proposed for parking. APPLICANT: Stuart McLeod and Don Miles FILE REFERENCE: EPIC -26 -90 THRESHOLD DETERMINATION: Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW RECORD 10 September 1990 Environmental Checklist including: Wetland Evaluation and Delineation Report 14 August 1990 David Markley, TSI Memo 14 September 1990 Utility Plans C -1 - C -8 May 1990 Floor Plan and Elevations S -1 S -3 (no date) Union Pacific Railroad Bridge Replacement Concept May 1990 27 February 1991 Pedestrian Routes August 1990 Revised Exhibition Facility Elevations (no date) 1 March 1991, Exhibition Facility Floor Plan Schematics 4 March 1991 Photographic and Perspective Analysis of Site 10 April 1991 Exhibition Center Traffic Analysis by TSI 3 May 1991 Wetlands Evaluation and Delineation Report/ Wetlands Avoidance and Mitigation Plan 11 July 1991 Gary Schulz, Urban Environmentalist record 28 May 1991 Ron Cameron TSI Report memo 27 June 1991 TSI response memo 26 July 1991 Ron Cameron, City Engineer Memo 1 August 1991 Gary Schulz, Urban Environmentalist Memo 23 August 1991 GeoEngineers Report 30 September 1991 Letter from Don Miles with TSI memo attached. 9 October 1991 TSI Fax of Volumes 11 August 1986 Interlocal Agreement between Renton and Tukwila APPROVALS AND PERMIT REQUIREMENTS: * Planning Commission Recommendation and City Council Ordinance that redesignates and rezones southernmost parcel (Tax Lot 252304 -9006) from Open Space and RA to Industrial and M -1 respectively. * Planning Commission approval for parking lot improvements. * Cooperative Parking Agreement approval by Planning Commission or Zoning Code parking requirement variance. * Utility permits including land altering, flood zone control, hauling, sewer, water, storm drain. * Building permit. BACKGROUND The subject site is composed of 4 separate parcels, with two separate owners. Off site parking is proposed on the Puget Power right -of -way located west of the development site. FINDINGS CHECKLIST ITEMS: 1. Earth Applicant submitted a geotechnical report which states that site contamination is relatively low due to its undeveloped character and that the structure should be supported with piles. Liquefaction potential is moderate to high and that recommended design and construction procedures will mitigate some of the liquefaction potential. The site is generally flat with a slight slope from south to north except for the extreme southernmost portion of the site. The area is considered a seismic hazard area with newberg silt loam, puget silty clay loam and woodenville silt loam as well as areas of fill that are unclassified. Applicant proposes filling for pavement and building locations which is 90 percent of the site. 2. Air Emissions from construction vehicles and dust are expected. After construction, emissions from vehicles traveling to site will increase. 3. Water The applicant has retained Watershed Dynamics to delineate the wetlands on site and assess the impact of the development on these areas. There are 4 type 3 wetlands north of S. 158th Street (Attachment B) and 2 wetlands south of S. 158th Street one of which is a type 2 (Attachment C) and the other a type 1 (Attachment D). The largest wetland, along the site's southern boundary, is part of a larger type 1 wetland; 1.68 acres of which is located on the subject site. The type 2 wetland is located adjacent to the building site and is not shown as retained. However, the Zoning Code's sensitive area overlay zone will require retention and a 50 foot buffer. Per the regulations of the sensitive area overlay zone, the applicant proposes filling the type 3 wetlands. The applicant would then be responsible for creating 150 percent (1.5:1) or 1.03 acres of additional wetlands (they only proposed 1.3:1). The compensatory mitigation is proposed adjacent to the existing type 1 area. A 100 foot buffer is the standard but the applicant requests a reduction of 50% as allowed, with an enhancement plan for the buffer area. A fifty foot buffer with the proposed enhancement and an approved mitigation plan would be acceptable. The storm drainage capacity for the Nelson /Longacres Drainage Basin was designed based on a 60 percent impervious coverage and highest and best use. The applicant is proposing a rezone of agriculturally zoned land and 90 percent impervious surface. Therefore detention will be required on site. The applicant shows a wet pond for detention at the north end of the site but must provide calculations to demonstrate capacity and quality standards are met. Per item 4 of the interlocal with Renton (A&C file # 86 -0555/ 8 -11- 86), drainage from the site has a right to connect to and use the P -1 channel. 4. Plants Portions of the site has been used for pasture and parking and most recently as a fill site. There are therefore a variety of pasture grasses interspersed with wetland plants and mature deciduous trees. A tree inventory has been done and the majority of significant vegetation will be removed to accommodate the building site and parking area. 5. Animals Because of the site's undeveloped character and the wetlands located on and around the site, hawk use and rodent habitat will be lost in areas to be developed with parking and building. 6. Energy and Natural Resources There is a petroleum pipeline that traverses the southern section of the site. Otherwise electricity and natural gas are available to the site. 7. Land Use The site is bordered on three sides by transportation corridors. In addition, Puget Sound Power and Light Company has a right -of -way which parallels the site just west of the Union Pacific railroad track. Otherwise there is a combination of commercial and industrial uses west of the site towards West Valley Highway. East of the Burlington Northern tracks, in the City of Renton, is a thoroughbred race track that has recently been purchased by the Boeing Company for a suburban office development. The site is primarily pasture that has been ditched along the east and west sides to encourage drainage. The area to the north and south of an extension of S. 158th Street has been used as gravel parking area for Longacres Traffic. The area encompassing and south of the City of Seattle water line has been on the City's 1982 Comprehensive Land Use Plan as Open space with the exception of a strip of Public Facilities corresponding with an extension of Strander Boulevard to the Renton city limits. North of that water line the area is designated Light Industrial. The zoning corresponds to the designations, RA and M -1 respectively. 8. Aesthetics According to the most recent documentation from the applicant, dated March 4, 1991, the structure will be 45 feet in height at the ridge line of the pitched roof per the site and area section dated March 1991. The concept also shows a straight sided 810 foot long by 230 foot wide structure with pedestrian openings at the north and south ends with no wall relief and minimal fenestration. Exhibition loading is shown all sides. On March 6, 1991, the applicant provided a visual analysis of views of the site from surrounding vantage points. The analysis consisted primarily of photographs, which demonstrated that parts of the structure would be visible from off -site. Per TMC 18.56.040, any on- premise parking area which contains stalls located more than one thousand feet from the principal use requires Board of Architectural Review approval for the entire lot. There are 2100 surface parking stalls proposed on site, some of which are located more than 1,000 feet from the exhibition facility. 9. Recreation The Interurban Trail extension is proposed for the Puget Power right -of -way in 1992. The preferred trail route will continue along the power line right of way to I -405 head east to the I -405 bridge over the railroad tracks, cross under I -405 and on to Fort Dent Park. The trail will be a minimum of 12 feet wide with 2 foot shoulders on each side. The applicant proposes leasing right of way from Puget Power to provide off -site parking for the facility; therefore the applicant's parking lot will need to be adjusted to incorporate the trail. The project could also impact the trail as it attempts to cross over and under the I -405 bridge at the north edge of the proposed parking area and proposed wet pond. 10. Transportation As was mentioned previously, the site is bounded on three sides by elevated transportation corridors, I -405, and the UP and BN railroad tracks. Current access to the site is from the west via West Valley Highway on S. 158th Street and an extension of Strander Boulevard. The applicant proposes extending Strander Boulevard as a private road from West Valley Highway to the site with an at grade crossing at the Strander intersection. Strander Boulevard has been in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan and Transportation Improvement Plan as a future east west connector. Item 2 of the interlocal agreement with Renton (A &C file 86 -055/ 8- 11 -86) specified that development review shall insure that appropriate connection is allowed. The other access point is under the UP railroad track at the end of S. 158th Street. Widening of the bridge at S. 158th Street to allow 4 versus 2 lanes is proposed. S. 158th Street public right - of -way stops at the west margin of the Puget Power right -of -way. Therefore approval from the property owner of Tax Parcel 2423040031 is necessary for access and road improvements to the exhibition site. Both the Cities of Tukwila and Renton have added the Tukwila Parkway (156th Street) / 16th Avenue connections to their Transportation Improvement Plans, which would cross a proposed parking area in the north end of the subject site. Transportation Solutions, Inc. was retained by the applicant to identify and assess the impacts to the existing transportation system and to make recommendations for road and intersection improvements and parking and pedestrian needs. The Zoning Code (TMC 18.56.050) requires exhibition halls to be provided with 1 parking stall for every 4 persons based on the occupancy load of the building. The 250,000 square foot floor area creates a Uniform Building Code occupancy of 16,666 and a parking requirement of 4,166. A code on -site parking deficit of 2100 exists. The transportation consultant has indicated the character of the facility is not defined by its size but by the mix of tenants it will serve. The zoning code allows the Planning Commission to approve cooperative parking agreements for facilities with a mix of uses. The TSI traffic report calculates demand exceeding the 2100 parking capacity on 26 days. All but 3 of those days occur on Saturday or Sunday and the remaining 3 experiencing peak in the evening. The report recommends multiple transportation demand management techniques to minimize traffic impacts and parking demands. 11. Utilities There are multiple utility lines which traverse the property: oil, natural gas, water, sewer, cable television, and telephone. Parking is shown on top of these lines. The soft soils and are a concern as special construction techniques may be necessary to protect lines from loads. CONCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS Issuance of a mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance is recommended for the project because adverse environmental impacts can be reduced below a level of probable significance. Due to the multiple requests within the proposal, the mitigating measures are separated and listed for the nonproject action of the Comprehensive Plan Change and Rezone request and then for the development of the Exhibition Facility and attendant improvements. ,,Comprehensive Plan Change and Rezone Mitigating Measures 1. Pay for the update of the Nelson /Longacres Storm Drainage Plan to include the area of the Comprehensive Plan change at highest and best use. 2. Sign and record no protest L.I.D. agreements for storm, sanitary and water improvements for area. 3. Record 60 foot wide access easements from eastern terminus of Strander Boulevard to site, providing continuation of Strander Boulevard and access to subject properties. 4. Consolidate separate tax parcels and or provide 60 foot dedicated right of way to all parcels within rezone site. 5. A signed and recorded agreement not to protest L.I.D. formation for Strander right -of -way extension improvements and to dedicate the necessary right -of -way. Exhibition Facility Mitigating Measures 6. Board of Architectural Review application, review and approval. The site plan must show the following minimums: a. surface water interim and final systems constructed per the King County Surface Water (1990) as supplemented by Tukwila, to include biofiltration and approved by the Tukwila Department; designed and Design Manual detention and Public Works b. parking aisles that are oriented perpendicular to building's north and south entrances; the c. expansion of the Type 1 wetland to accommodate 1.5:1 compensatory mitigation for filling Type 3 wetlands and preservation of Type 2 wetland and buffer; d. landscaping that provides definition of pedestrian walks, shade, and visual relief for facility visitors of massive parking areas and that complements building; landscape islands 7.5 feet wide between every ten parking stalls. e. incorporation of 12 foot asphalt trail and 2 foot shoulders on Puget Power right -of -way; f. incorporation of Interurban Trail along north property line; g. incorporation of significant stands of trees h. logical pedestrian aisles that are treated with landscaping and lead to facility entrances. i. 158th and Strander will be treated as entrances to the site and will be landscaped to highlight their roles. j. break -up building facades with color , lines and massing to create interest and a balanced architectural design. Materials shall be compared with quality of adjacent new commercial developments. k. areas for trash, building services, mechanical equipment and event loading will be identified and screened using landscaping where possible or decorative hard materials where not. 1. create a luminare plan that creates a night -time design for structure. Light standards shall complement design of structure, and have several scales to proved for pedestrian, building and site lighting. 7. Cooperative Parking Application with inclusion of proposal for specific transportation demand management and off -site parking agreements per the recommendation of TSI, Inc. Transportation improvements or commitments to be provided with the BAR submittal (or building permit, if applicable) and include the following: a. The following funds to be used for either capacity or intersection improvements $ 185,000 dollars for Interurban /Grady /405 ramp intersection; $43,000 for W. Valley /S. 156th Street intersection; $47,000 for the W. Valley /S. 158th Street intersection; $30,000 for the W. Valley/ Strander intersection; and $38,853 for the W. Valley/ S. 180th Street improvement cost. b. One half of a fair share contribution paid to the City of Renton prior to issuance of building permit and the other half prior to issuance of the facility's certificate of occupancy for the cost of off -site road improvements in the City of Renton corridors used by traffic generated by the proposed project. Fair share shall be based on the average peak hour trip generation and distribution documented in the TSI traffic analysis. The proportional share shall be determined by: 1) a formula involving project traffic volumes divided by the capacity increase generated by the new improvements multiplied by the cost of the improvements as recommended by the Renton Valley Transportation Plan Update or 2) on the same off -site trip end fee or other basis applied to other new development or redevelopment for off -site assessment of road improvements recommended by the Valley Transportation Plan update. The total amount will not exceed $200,000 and the total amount plus interest shall be refunded within six years of issuance of building permit if not spent to correct identified impacts. If adoption of the Renton Valley Transportation Plan update occurs after issuance of building permit or certificate of occupancy, any surplus of funds (over calculated mitigation) on deposit with the City of Renton shall be refunded to the applicant. c. S. 158th Street improved to public standards from the Embassy Suites section to the Exhibition Facility site. The drainage in pipes underneath the railroad bridge will need to be replaced with a box culvert section. Sidewalk widths on S. 158th shall include additional evaluation and documentation of peak pedestrian flows or pedestrian peak hour factors including an evaluation of maximum width sidewalk that can be provided. A sidewalk wider than 8 feet will be provided if possible; d. Strander Boulevard between W. Valley Highway and the Exhibition Facility will need to provide for safe pedestrian and vehicle traffic movement. Approval of the proposed improvements with sidewalks, four lanes, drainage,, lighting and traffic control is required. e. If a multi -modal or commuter transit facility is developed on the north side of I -405 or on a site adjacent to the Exhibition facility, then property owners will provide access between the Exhibition Facility and Metro facility for pedestrians, for vehicles and for joint parking use, if agreed to by Tukwila. 9. Easement agreements shall be for life of project and be from: a. Puget Power for use of their property for parking improvements. b. Property owners of all parcels that are necessary to allow access, construction of road and perpetual parking. c. Property owners on all parcels, for life of the exhibition building, for parking and through access and utilities to service the subject facility. d. Union Pacific railroad to allow bridge construction at S. 158th street extension and at -grade crossing at Strander extension. e. Property owners of all parcels with ditches, swales and detention that convey "public" surface water for City of Tukwila, access, so the City can maintain the system conveying "public" surface water or agreement from the owners to maintain the system to City standards and a hold harmless agreement regarding surface waters which flow through properties. 10. Letters of acknowledgement from Olympic pipeline, Seattle Water, and Metro sewer regarding proposed construction location on site plan with respect to their facilities with BAR submittal. 11. A gate valve the looped system where it connects on S. 158th Street to mitigate the different pressures in the system. BOARD OF AR('" "TECTURAL REVIEW DESIdtvi REVIEW RECEI VED APPLICATION CITY OF TUKWILA 1 71993 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVEL@ ONITY DEVELOPMENT 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 Telephone: (206) 431 -3680 1. BRIEFLY DESCRIBE YOUR PROPOSAL: Exhibition Facility: Phase One, between 150 - 188,000 square feet net public area with 1880 parking spaces. Phase Two to 207,000 net public area. 2. PROJECT LOCATION: (Give street address or, if vacant, indicate lot(s), block, and sub - division; or tax lot number, access street, and nearest intersection) Eastern end of South 159th St. between B.N. and U.P. Railroads. Quarter: SW 1/4 Section: 24 Township: 23 Range: 4 (This information may be found on your tax statement) 3. APPLICANT:* Name: McLeod Development Co. Address. 213 Lake Street South, Kirkland, WA 98033 Phon • 20• _ Signature: ��Z' Date: 2,d/� * The applicant is the pew . n whom the staff will contact regarding the application, and to whom all notices and reports shall be sent, unless otherwise stipulated by applicant. AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP 4. PROPERTY Name: McLeod Development Co. OWNER Address: 213 Lake Street South, Kirkland. WA 98033 Phone: (206) 822 -4114 I /WE,[signature(s)] swear that I /we are the owner( ) or j' tract purchaser(s) of the property involved in this application and that the fore • oing statements and answers contained in this application are true and correct to the best of my /our knowledge and belief. Date: BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW DESIGN REVIEW APPLIC "TION CRITERIA Page 2 The following criteria will be used by the BAR in its decision - making on your proposed project. Please carefully review the criteria, respond to each criterion (if appropriate), and describe how your plans and elevations meet the criteria. If the space provided for response is insufficient, attach additional response to this form. 1. RELATIONSHIP OF STRUCTURE TO SITE A. The site should be planned to accomplish a desirable transition with the streetscape and to provide for adequate landscaping, and pedestrian movement. B. Parking and service areas should be located, designed, and screened to moderate the visual impact of large paved areas. C. The height and scale of each building should be considered in relation to it site. RESPONSE: See attached "Design Review Criteria - 1. Relationship of Structure to Site." 2. RELATIONSHIP OF STRUCTURE AND SITE TO ADJOINING AREA A. Harmony in texture, lines, and masses is encouraged. B. Appropriate landscape transition to adjoining properties should be provided. C. Public buildings and structures should be consistent with the established neighborhood character. D. Compatibility of vehicular pedestrian circulation patterns and loading facilities in terms of safety, efficiency and convenience should be encouraged. E. Compatibility of on -site vehicular circulation with street circulation should be encouraged. RESPONSE: See attached "Design Review Criteria - 2. Relationship of Structure and Site to Adjoining Area." BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW DESIGN REVIEW APPLIF'\TION Page 3 3. LANDSCAPE AND SITE TREATMENT A. Where existing topographic patterns contribute to beauty and utility of a development, they should be recognized and preserved and enhanced. B. Grades of walks, parking spaces, terraces, and other paved areas should promote safety and provide an inviting and stable appearance. C. Landscape treatment should enhance architectural features, strengthen vistas and important axis, and provide shade. D. In locations where plants will be susceptible to injury by pedestrian or motor traffic, mitigating steps should be taken. E. Where building sites limit planting, the placement of trees or shrubs in paved areas is encour- aged. F. Screening of service yards, and other places which tend to be unsightly, should be accom- plished by use of walls, fencing, planting or combinations of these. Screening should be effective in winter and summer. G. In areas where general planting will not prosper, other materials such as fences, walls, and pavings of wood, brick, stone, or gravel may be used. H. Exterior lighting, when used, should enhance the building design and the adjoining land- scape. Lighting standards and fixtures should be of a design and size compatible with the building and adjacent area. Lighting should be shielded, and restrained in design. Excessive brightness and brilliant colors should be avoided. RESPONSE: See attached "Design Review Criteria - 3. Landscape and Site Treatment." 4. BUILDING DESIGN A. Architectural style is not restricted, evaluation of a project should be based on quality of its design and relationship to surroundings. B. Buildings should be to appropriate scale and be in harmony with permanent neighboring de- velopments. . BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW DESIGN REVIEW APPLIC, "TION Page 4 C. Building components - such as windows, doors, eaves, and parapets - should have good pro- portions and relationship to one another. Building components and ancillary parts shall be consistent with anticipated life of the structure. D. Colors should be harmonious, with bright or brilliant colors used only for accent. E. Mechanical equipment or other utility hardware on roof, ground or buildings should be screened from view. F. Exterior lighting should be part of the architectural concept. Fixtures, standards and all ex- posed accessories should be harmonious with building design. G. Monotony of design in single or multiple buildings projects should be avoided. Variety of detail, form, and siting should be used to provide visual interest. RESPONSE: See attached "Design Review Criteria - 4. Building Design." 5. MISCELLANEOUS STRUCTURES AND STREET FURNITURE A. Miscellaneous structures and street furniture should be designed to be part of the architec- tural concept of design and landscape. Materials should be compatible with buildings, scale should be appropriate, colors should be in harmony with buildings and surroundings, and proportions should be to scale. B. Lighting in connection with miscellaneous structures and street furniture should meet the guidelines applicable to site, landscape and buildings. RESPONSE: See attached "Design Review Criteria 5. Miscellaneous Structures and Street Furniture.: City of Tukwila Board of Architectural Review Design Review Criteria 1. Relationship of Structure to site The main site of the Northwest Expo Center (EC) is approximately 24 acres and measures approximately 300' x 3,000'. It is located immediately west of Longacres Park, as well as being bound on both the east and west sides of the site by two railroad lines, the Union Pacific and Burlington Northem Railroad. The north end of the site is bound by Interstate 405. Most visitors will access the EC by West Valley Parkway (Interurban Ave) and enter parking areas on either the north or south end of the site. The major entry lobby is located at the north end of the EC with a minor entry on the south. Both lobbies have landscaped plazas in front creating a comfortable transition space between the parking lots and the building lobby. The north plaza will also have a passenger drop off point for shuttle vehicles. The EC sits approximately at mid -site, with parking Tots on the north and south side. The building's service zone is on the east side with loading docks on both the north and south ends. The lobbies are on the west side of the building ends. Locating these functions on either side of the Exhibition Halls will separate loading /service operations from visitor movement patterns. This site design strategy minimizes conflicts between the two operations, thereby increasing safety and operational efficiency. The two parking areas on the main site will provide a total of 1,541 parking spaces. Additional parking will be provided in a parking area attached to the main site. The altemate parking locations are in the Puget Power easement west of the site. The total parking to be provided in all parking areas will be 1,880 spaces. The parking areas have been designed to provide the most efficient parking operation to a variety of events. The parking aisles are oriented perpendicular to the building's north and south entrances. This orientation provides the safest and least restrictive pedestrian movement to and from the EC. Parking operations will be adequately staffed in order to provide the least congestion and conflict between automobile and pedestrian movement patterns. The parking areas have been landscaped with large stands and clusters of trees to moderate the paving areas. The landscaping composition also provides intermediate focal points for visitors between parking areas and the exhibition facility. Mc805 1 .... ti.........a.- ..rrwxY..an hr ✓.�.N!'.A:.'.R.,"i'h:'Si+u. ir[!..7V5 *K. ". �P'�.+if`"•t ",:+,;^,�,.'•'1_ ! '.J; ?:TT:�r.K;>.67i;.�.' ^1w "s.. +!.:?'.:i":Y. ^. ?Si aht"S.SrcisC;.[Q�1 u.C,:'Y?::' The facility and parking areas are thus integrated in an overall site organizat on which creates a strong order to both. 2. Relationship of Structure and Site to Adjoining Area. Because the railroad tracks along the east and west side of the project are aised on a berm about 15' above the site, only the upper portions of the building will be visible from off -site areas. The facili is designed to be compatible with both current and future district character, in both land use and building mass. The massing composition for the building is created by an interplay of larg: elements that express the overall function and spaces in the building with smaller elements and detailing related to the p:destrian scale. The heights of the building are compatible with those of adjacent structures such as the Embassy Suites otel and Longacres Park. The mass of the EC structure is compatible with that of Southcenter Shopping Mall and other n:arby commercial developments. Site vehicular circulation, both visitor and service, is designed to be compatib e with existing street circulation. There are two primary access routes, from S. 158th St. and Strander Blvd. Both of these access drives will have improved roadways and landscaping to highlight their roles. The building is serviced with 8 truck docks and a separate food service doc and trash dumpster location. The building also has doors to accommodate trucks entering directly onto the floor of the facili y to unload exhibit equipment. This feature will alleviate truck congestion at the service docks. All service and loading area are screened and positioned to not be seen by visitors to the EC, or from adjacent properties and streets. MC9:6 2 P•:a r. ^,r!..., >. u. _..,�:ysa7 ^.2x...., .. ?tr��: .'tt 3. Landscape and Site Treatment The Exhibition Facility site is unique in that it is located between two large linear railroad berms, Burlington Northem to the east and Union Pacific to the west. The berms associated with these railbeds are the dominant landscape elements and help to drive the overall form of the EC and its associated parking areas. Functionally they contain the site within very prominent boundaries and provide a visual screen that helps to reduce the impact of the parking when viewed from outside the site. Within the context of the site, the linear railbeds dictate that the parking areas and EC be elongated in similar fashion. This provides a strong central axis and pedestrian corridor leading from the ends of the site to the EC in the center. Reinforcing the pedestrian corridor are landscape islands with concentrations of plantings. These help to reinforce the scale of the site, as well as provide a visual and shade break between parking areas. Visual corridors from the parking areas to the facility follow the pedestrian spine and are framed by the sequential plantings. Larger masses and a simplified plant palette visually reinforce the scale of site and produce a stronger design. Rows of poplars along the eastem extent of the property reinforce the rhythm created by the columns and railbeds and tie the parking areas to the EC. The plant material used on the site was chosen for its hardiness and tolerance to heat and drought. Larger concentrations help to alleviate the stress that is put upon plants when they are sited individually or in smaller groupings. In areas where a high water table condition has been found to exist on the site, trees were chosen that would thrive in the moist soils. All wetlands on the combined parcels of land have been identified and classed as to type. These areas were then measured for square footage. A suitable area was identified adjacent to Designated Wetland 12 as an area for relocation of a comparable area by land use code, the wetlands creation plan and monitoring program are a part of this submittal. 4. Building Design The Northwest Expo Center (EC) will ultimately provide 207,000 s.f. of public exhibition and meeting space that will be built in two phases and which will be primarily used for consumer and trade shows. Phase Two will expand the initial project of between 150,000 and 188,000 s.f. to its final 207,000 s.f. while adding a secondary entry to the south. The EC will have two floors and a two -story main space to accommodate a variety of show users. In the final built -out configuration the main floor AIC 3 • will be 163,000 s.f. and the upper floor will be 44,000 s.f. of public area. The Phase One totals will be between 109,000 and 144,000 s.f. of main floor and 44,000 s.f. of upper floor public area. Stairs and elevators located at optimum points will be used to circulate visitors between the two floors. The facility will utilize operable wall partitions to subdivide the exhibit space into various sizes and meeting rooms. The EC is designed to accommodate multiple events simultaneously and has two lobbies located at opposite ends of the building. Because no parking or public areas are located on the long side of the building, these lobbies at the ends comprise the primary public facades of the facility. The walls of the exhibit hall are articulated with patterned concrete panels of a large scale which form a background for the more articulated lobbies and entry areas. The concrete panels are smooth at the lower portion to provide a more inviting finish at the pedestrian level and to create a base to help breakdown the overall size of the wall. The upper portions of the concrete panels are articulated with reveal joints and textures creating a large scale pattem on portions of the building visible from a distance. The north and south walls incorporate banded CMU, contrasting in color and texture, to engage the view of the building from a distance. The lobbies are detailed with metal and glass, accent colors, lighting, graphics and landscaping oriented to the pedestrian activities on the site. Individual mechanical units are roof mounted and located along the east and west sides of the building. They are viewed primarily from a distance as the roof slope shields them from view as one approaches the facility. For this reason the mechanical units have been thought of as an accent feature: to be lit and painted an accent color. All services in and out of the unit will be located behind the unit, shielded from view. The overall design concept expresses the different building elements in a composition that serves to provide variety in form and detail at two scale levels: bold patterns and large scales elements designed for the long view," i.e., CMU banding and neon light fixtures which present the entire north facade to the 1 -405 and parking lot views; and textures, patterns and colors designed with an elegance in color and proportion perceptible to the pedestrian upon approach to the entry plaza and lobby. 5. Miscellaneous Structures and Street Furniture Landscape islands will serve to articulate the overall project organization. They will provide an identifiable point from which visitors can locate their cars in the parking areas. Luminaries will also be located in the islands to light the parking lots in the evening. Smaller scale site lighting, pedestrian bollards, paving and landscaping will be provided to reinforce the overall design concept. Shelters are provided at each of the shuttle stop locations. 6. Traffic and Parking Parking Supply - The principal refinement in the current parking strategy is that all parking will be accommodated on -site and in the contiguous parking lots located south of 1 -405. There will be a total of 1,880 parking spaces an -site and directly contiguous to the site. In addition, there are an estimated 800 to 1,500 spaces available on weekends and evenings within a four -block walking radius of the site when peak parking demands occur. Primary Site Ingress will be at 158th Street and Strander Boulevard off West Valley Highway. A directional Trail Blazer sign system (described in more detail later in this summary) will guide event attendees to these access roads that lead to the on -site parking. Trained and qualified exhibition center staff will provide traffic control along these roads leading to the site to maintain smooth flow of traffic and ensure the opportunity for emergency vehicle access. Parking Lot Management will include traffic directors that guide vehicles off the street into the parking lot where multiple cashiers (to reduce delay and queues) collect a nominal parking fee. Then parking attendants will Toad the lots starting closest to the building and park progressively further away from the building. In this way patrons park as close to the entrance as possible and pedestrians walk toward the building while the auto traffic and parking activity move away from the entrances. This serves to minimize pedestrian /automobile conflicts in the parking lot. When the primary lots reach their practical capacity, the traffic directors and cashiers will shift to the accessory parking planned to be provided along the Puget Sound Power and Light right -of -way. The parking lot will be loaded in a pattem similar to the primary parking Tots. MMC505 5 c-• As attendees leave and spaces in the middle of the parking lot become available, parking directors will guide parkers to these mid -lot spaces. Handicapped parking will be located near the entrance to the building with barrier -free access to the building entrance. Exiting traffic will be guided using cones and portable barriers to the main access roads (158th and Strander Boulevard) where traffic directors will control the inbound and outbound flows to ensure that inbound queues are minimized. Passenger Drop -off and Loading areas will be provided at each end of the building. Parking and traffic directors will guide vehicles to and from these loading areas. These loading areas can also be used for shuttle and charter transit buses that may be employed during selected larger events. A curb manager will ensure proper use and traffic control in these areas where pedestrian flows consolidate near the building entrance. Pedestrian Access will be provided by sidewalks that will be constructed as part of improvements to 158th and Strander Boulevard. Internal to the site will be marked pedestrian walkways that are located to minimize conflict with automobile traffic flows. A Public Information Program will be the cornerstone of the Parking and Access Strategy and will be designed to provide advance information regarding parking and access for most, if not all of the prospective exhibitors, attendees and employees of the facility. Key to the effectiveness of this program will be the people who manage it. It is proposed that the Operations Manager in coordination with the General Manager and Parking Supervisor, lead a program including several informational pieces will be developed to address the unique needs of new employees, exhibitors, and attendees. Primary elements of this program are proposed to include: • A brochure identifying transportation and parking options for employees will be included in new employee information packages and will advise employees of transit access options (including Metro timetables and route maps and information phone numbers), available shuttle services from hotels, and parking policies relative to on -site parking. Likewise, employees will be advised of those locations where parking is prohibited or where parking may result in towing of their car (neighboring businesses, fire lanes, etc.). MC:B05 6 • An informational package for exhibitors alerting them to lodging, dining and transportation options with emphasis on lodging with shuttle service to the site. Parking policies, preferred access and pricing for on -site parking during move - in /move -out and during events will be provided as part of the exhibitor information package. • In conjunction with event advertising via both print and broadcast media, the exhibition center will prepare complimentary art work and audio /video spots to educate event -goers to transportation altematives and the variety of driving routes people can use to minimize congestion and delay in traveling to the site. Preferred routes from the north and from the south will be defined and will be reinforced by guide signing on the street. A Guide Sign System, including a series of trail blazer guide signs, is proposed to be posted along entry access routes leading to the site to guide drivers who may be unfamiliar with the streets leading to the site. The following are the basic principles of this program: MC The guide signs are intended to be the smaller signs that are used to guide drivers to public facilities like rest areas, park- and -ride lots, parking garages, etc. These are typically designed with white lettering on a blue or brown background. Sometimes, as with the Seattle Center, Tacoma Dome or Kingdome, special logo designs are made a part of the sign message. To the maximum extent possible it is desired that a graphic image be used instead of a word message because it will be much more easily recognizable. Further, assuming it is compatible with the symbolic image, signs that can be cut into a shape that outlines a simple, bold image to make them smaller yet easily identifiable. An example of this type of sign is on the east coast where shapes are used in concert with logos to distinguish one historic attraction from another. This symbolic approach also reduces the appearance of sign clutter provided other standard traffic sign conventions are applied. See the attached sketch. • The site is intended to have two access points - 158th Street and Strander Boulevard. 158th will best serve traffic from the north while traffic inbound from the south will find Strander Boulevard more attractive as an alternative. Thus, if possible, color coded arrows will supplement the basic sign to guide people to their most convenient entrance. 7 • As discussed above, simple arrows (known as route marker assemblies) will supplement the basic sign to give drivers a clear understanding of where the access route turns. These arrows will be changeable along West Valley Highway in order to respond to the magnitude and character of the traffic flow and event demand. .« • 8' 24 SYM LOG OL 24" 21" TSI TnarporuUoo Solution, loc. Typical Gu de Sign Exhibition Facility BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW DESIQ" REVIEW [ (� PLACATION 00 5 uthcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 �, ; , "�`' Z 1992 63 Telephone: (206) 431 -3680 CITY OF TUKWILA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOP ENT C:11 Y OF i t.1's'.�•'. °:I_ 1. BRIEFLY DESCRIBE YOUR PROPOSAL: E;thibition Facility Project includes es 250,000SF of display area and 2300 parking spaces 2. PROJECT LOCATION: (Give street address or, if vacant, indicate lot(s), block, and sub- division; or tax lot number, access street, and nearest intersection) Eastern end of S. 159th Atreet, between B.N. and U.P. Railroads S.W. a 24 23 4 Quarter:N.W. 4 Section: 25 Township: 23 Range: 4 (This information may be found on your tax statement) 3. APPLICANT:* Name: McLeod Development Co. Address•213 Lake Street S., Kirkland , WA 98033 o 206 -822 y 14 Signature: G / Date: March 24, ].992 * The applicant is th'pers." whom the staff will contact regarding the application, and to whom all notices and reports shall be sent, unless otherwise stipulated by applicant. AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP 4. PROPERTY Name: McLeod Development Co. OWNER 213 Lake Street S., Kirkland, WA 98033 Address: Phone: : 206 - 822 -4114 I /WE,Isignature(s)] swear that I /we are the owne o c fact purchaser(s) of the property involved in this application and that the fore:Armg statements and answers contained in this application are true and correct to the est of my /our knowledge and belief. Date: 0 '. . .. �.. BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION Page 2 CRITERIA The following criteria will be used by the BAR in its decision- making on your proposed project. Please carefully review the criteria, respond to each criterion (if appropriate), and describe how your plans and elevations meet the criteria. If the space provided for response is insufficient, attach additional response to this form. 1. RELATIONSHIP OF STRUCTURE TO SITE A. The site should be planned to accomplish a desirable transition with the streetscape and to provide for adequate landscaping, and pedestrian movement. B. Parking and service areas should be located, designed, and screened to moderate the visual impact of large paved areas. C. The height and scale of each building should be considered in relation to it site. RESPONSE: See attached 2. RELATIONSHIP OF STRUCTURE AND SITE TO ADJOINING AREA A. Harmony in texture, lines, and masses is encouraged. B. Appropriate landscape transition to adjoining properties should be provided. C. Public buildings and structures should be consistent with the established neighborhood character. D. Compatibility of vehicular pedestrian circulation patterns and loading facilities in terms of safety, efficiency and convenience should be encouraged. E. Compatibility of on -site vehicular circulation with street circulation should be encouraged. RESPONSE: See attached BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW • DESIGN REVIEW APPLIC`''TION Page 3 3. LANDSCAPE AND SITE TREATMENT A. Where existing topographic patterns contribute to beauty and utility of a development, they should be recognized and preserved and enhanced. B. Grades of walks, parking spaces, terraces, and other paved areas should promote safety and provide an inviting and stable appearance. C. Landscape treatment should enhance architectural features, strengthen vistas and important axis, and provide shade. D. In locations where plants will be susceptible to injury by pedestrian or motor traffic, mitigating steps should be taken. E. Where building sites limit planting, the placement of trees or shrubs in paved areas is encour- aged. F. Screening of service yards, and other places which tend to be unsightly, should be accom- plished by use of walls, fencing, planting or combinations of these. Screening should be effective in winter and summer. G. In areas where general planting will not prosper, other materials such as fences, walls, and pavings of wood, brick, stone, or gravel may be used. H. Exterior lighting, when used, should enhance the building design and the adjoining land- scape. Lighting standards and fixtures should be of a design and size compatible with the building and adjacent area. Lighting should be shielded, and restrained in design. Excessive brightness and brilliant colors should be avoided. RESPONSE: See attached 4. BUILDING DESIGN A. Architectural style is not restricted, evaluation of a project should be based on quality of its design and relationship to surroundings. B. Buildings should be to appropriate scale and be in harmony with permanent neighboring de- velopments. BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW • .'DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION Page 4 C. Building components - such as windows, doors, eaves, and parapets - should have good pro- portions and relationship to one another. Building components and ancillary parts shall be consistent with anticipated life of the structure. D. Colors should be harmonious, with bright or brilliant colors used only for accent. E. Mechanical equipment or other utility hardware on roof, ground or buildings should be screened from view. F. Exterior lighting should be part of the architectural concept. Fixtures, standards and all ex- posed accessories should be harmonious with building design. G. Monotony of design in single or multiple buildings projects should be avoided. Variety of detail, form, and siting should be used to provide visual interest. RESPONSE: See attached 5. MISCELLANEOUS STRUCTURES AND STREET FURNITURE A. Miscellaneous structures and street furniture should be designed to be part of the architec- tural concept of design and landscape. Materials should be compatible with buildings, scale should be appropriate, colors should be in harmony with buildings and surroundings, and proportions should be to scale. B. Lighting in connection with miscellaneous structures and street furniture should meet the guidelines applicable to site, landscape and buildings. RESPONSE: See attached BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION INTERURBAN SPECIAL REVIEW DISTRICT Page 5 The following six criteria are used in the special review of the Interurban area in order to manage the development of this area, to upgrade its general appearance, to provide incentives for compatible uses, to recognize and to capitalize on the benefits to the area of the amenities including the Green River and nearby recreational facilities, to encourage development of more people - oriented use, and to provide for development incentives that will help to spur growth. Please describe how your proposed development relates to the goals for this District. Use additional response space, if necessary. *Note: Project is outside the Interurban District 1. The proposed development design should be sensitive to the natural amenities of the area. 2. The proposed development use should demonstrate due regard for the use and enjoyment of public recreational areas and facilities. 3. The proposed development should provide for safe and convenient on -site pedestrian circu- lation. 4. The proposed property use should be compatible with neighboring uses and complementary to the district in which it is located. 5. The proposed development should seek to minimize significant adverse environmental im- pacts. 6. The proposed development should demonstrate due regard for significant historical features in the area. „ City of Tukwila Board of Architectural Review Design Review Criteria 1. Relationship of Structure to site The main site of the Exhibition Facility (EF) is approximately 24 acres and measures approximately 300' x 3,000'. It is located immediately west of Longacres Park, as well as being bound on both the east and west sides of the site by two railroad lines, the Union Pacific and Burlington Northern Railroad. The north end of the site is bound by Highway 405. Most visitors will access the EF by West Valley Parkway (Interurban Ave) and enter parking areas on either the north or south end of the site. A major entry lobby is located at each end of the EF. Both lobbies have landscaped plazas in front creating a desirable transition space between the parking Tots and the building lobby. The north plaza will also have a passenger drop off point for shuttle vehicles. The EF sits approximately at mid -site, measuring approximately 254 x 890', and has parking lots on the north and south side. The building service and loading zone is on the east side. The lobbies are on the west side of the building. Locating these functions on either side of the Exhibition Halls will separate loading /service operations from visitor movement patterns. This site design strategy minimizes conflicts between the two operations, thereby increasing safety and operational efficiency. The two parking areas on the main site will provide a total of 1,556 parking spaces. Additional parking will be provided in a parking area located north of 1-405. The total parking to be provided in all parking areas will be 2,330 spaces. Shuttle buses will be used to transport visitor's from the parking lot areas farthest from the building. The parking areas have been designed to provide the most efficient parking operation to a variety of events. The parking aisles are oriented perpendicular to the building's north and south entrances. This orientation provides the safest and least restrictive pedestrian movement to and from the EF. Parking operations will be adequately staffed in order to provide the least congestion and conflict between automobile and pedestrian movement patterns. The parking areas have been landscaped with large stands and clusters of trees to moderate the paving areas. The landscaping composition also provides intermediate focal points for visitors between parking areas and the exhibition facility. MC205 The facility and parking areas are integrated in an overall site organization which creates an understandable order to both. This is accomplished by dividing the parking areas and public areas of the building into distinct segments which are marked by 80' tall Feature Pylons. These pylon elements will be identified graphically so that patrons can use them as points of orientation in the overall complex. They will also serve as standards for site lighting and directional graphics. The Feature Pylons will create a strong visual image that expresses the function and organization of the facility. 2. Relationship of Structure and Site to Adjoining Area. Because the railroad tracks run along the east and west side of the project are raised on a berm about 15' above the site, only the upper portions of the building will be visible from off-site areas. The facility is designed to be compatible with both current and future district character, in both land use and building mass. The massing composition for the building is created by an interplay of large elements that express the overall function and spaces in the building with smaller elements and detailing related to the pedestrian scale. The heights of the building and the Feature Pylons are compatible with those of adjacent structures such as the Embassy Suites Hotel and Longacres Park. The mass of the EF structure is compatible with that of Southcenter Shopping Mall and other nearby commercial developments. Site vehicular circulation, both visitor and service, is designed to jbe compatible with existing street circulation. There are two primary access routes, from S. 158th St. and Strander Blvd. Both of these access drives will have improved roadways and landscaping to highlight their roles. The building is serviced with 10 truck docks and a separate food service dock and trash dumpster location. The building also has doors to accommodate trucks entering directly onto the floor of the facility to unload exhibit equipment. This feature will alleviate truck congestion at the service docks. All service and loading areas are screened and positioned to not be seen by visitors to the EF, or from adjacent properties and streets. 3. Landscape and Site Treatment The Exhibition Facility site is unique because it is located between two large linear railroad berms, Burlington Northern to the east and Union Pacific to the west. The berms associated with these railbeds are the dominant landscape elements and help to drive the overall form of the EF and its associated parking areas. Functionally they contain the site within very prominent boundaries and provide a visual screen that helps to reduce the impact of the parking when viewed from outside the site. Within the context of the site, the linear railbeds define that the parking areas and EF be elongated in a similar fashion. This provides a strong central axis and pedestrian corridor leading from the ends of the site to the EF in the center. Reinforcing the pedestrian corridor are the Feature Pylons alternating with concentrations of plantings. These help to reinforce the scale of the site, divided by the columns, as well as provide a visual and shade break between parking areas. Visual corridors from the parking areas to the facility follow the pedestrian spine and are framed by the sequential plantings. larger masses and a simplified plant palette visually reinforce the scale of site and produce a stronger design. Rows of poplars along the eastem extent of the property reinforce the rhythm created by the columns and railbeds and tie the parking areas to the EF. The plant material used on the site was chosen for its hardiness and tolerance to heat and drought. Larger concentrations help to alleviate the stress that is put upon plants when they are sited individually or in smaller groupings. In areas where a high water table condition has been found to exist on the site, trees were chosen that would thrive in the moist soils. All wetlands on the combined parcels of land have been identified and classed as to type. These areas were then measured for square footage. A suitable area was identified adjacent to Designated Wetland 12 as an area for relocation of a comparable area by land use code. The wetlands creation plan and monitoring program are a part of this submittal. 4. Building Design The EF will provide approximately 250,000 s.f. of public space that will be primarily used for consumer and trade shows. The EF will have two floors and a two -story main space to accommodate a variety of show users. The main floor is 175,000 s.f. and the upper floor is 85,000 s.f. of public area. Four sets of escalators, stairs and elevators located at optimum points will be used to circulate visitors between the two floors. The facility will utilize operable wall partitions to subdivide the exhibit 1Cf05 3 • space into various sizes and meeting rooms. The EF is designed to accommodate multi- events simultaneously and has two lobbies located at opposite ends of the building. Because no parking or public areas are located on the long side of the building, these lobbies at the ends comprise the primary public facades of the facility. The walls of the exhibit hall are articulated with patterned concrete panels accented by painted metal details such as lighting brackets, exit stairs, and mechanical equipment screens. The concrete panels are textured at the lower portion to provide more detail at the pedestrian level and create a base to help breakdown the overall size of the wall. The upper portions of the concrete panels are articulated with reveal joints creating a large scale pattern on portions of the building visible from a distance. The upper portions of the exhibit hall are set back from the edge to break up the overall massing. These wall surfaces are clad in metal siding to develop a layering of surfaces between the concrete and metal walls to further articulate the massing. The high roof over the exhibit hall is a segmented vault which softens the profile of the building and marks the central space which anchors the overall massing of the building. The lobbies are detailed with metal and glass, accent colors, lighting, graphics and landscaping oriented to the pedestrian activities on the site. The overall project organization which begins in the parking areas, by marking segments of the site with Feature Pylons, is integrated into the building design. The rhythm of pylons carries into the lobbies with each major entry point identified by a Feature Pylon. Mechanical equipment is located along the east and west side of the building. It is visually screened in mezzanine penthouses with accent panels that carry the theme of the Feature Pylons, thereby using the mechanical spaces to articulate the overall massing of the building. 5. Miscellaneous Structures and Street Furniture The Feature Pylons which serve to articulate the overall project organization are the principal site structures. They will provide an identifiable point from which visitors can locate their cars in the parking areas. Luminaries will also be located in the pylon to light the parking lots in the evening. Accent lighting on the pylons will create an interesting night -time presence to the EF. Smaller scale site lighting, pedestrian bollards, paving and landscaping will be provided to reinforce the overall design concept. Shelters are provided at each of the shuttle stop locations. Moos 4 6. Traffic and Parking Informational signage will be provided on West Valley Road prior to South 158th Street which will direct patrons to specified events via the Strander Blvd. Access or the South 158th Street Access. The EF Management will provide traffic routing and parking information programs which event sponsors will be required to publish which direct people to the parking lot and the event entrance (North or South). All mailing of data or announcement of events will have data specifying the entrance and parking lot to be used. Advise that a special event related parking requirement study has been carried out and data is a part of the submittal under 'Conceptual'Parking' Demand Analysis'. S PAFkLIN G " Lighting for the McLeod Exhibition Facility Exterior Parking Lot The parking lot will be illuminated using a cutoff type luminaire on 40' poles installed on concrete bases that are 36" above finished grade. The poles and luminaires will be natural anodized aluminum color to blend with the day time sky. The level of illumination will be 1 footcandle minimum for security. The power allowance will comply with the energy code. The source will be a high pressure sodium. Pedestrian Way The intended pedestrian ways through the parking lot and at the building entrances will be provided additional illumination with low level poles and bollards as appropriate. The poles will not exceed 16'0 ". The lamp sources will be metal halide to distinguished the pathway from the general parking lot lighting. Building Facade The side wall panels will be illuminated with metal' halide luminaires to provide visual points of interest and landmarks to help visitors orient themselves around the building. Ends of the Building Metal halide uplighting will be provide on the ends of the building and the roof overhang as well. There will be a ground level illuminated end panel to provide an entrance focal point for visitors arriving at night. The reflected light from this panel will also contribute to sidewalk illumination levels around the entrance. Exterior Perimeter Soffits The perimeter areas will be illuminated with metal halide downlights. The lighting level should be 15 to 20 footcandles for security, circulation and pedestrian safety. Exterior Controls Exterior lighting will be controlled per the energy code to provide photocell -on and time clock -off control with manual override capability. !1 CORPORATION ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING, LIGHTING DESIGN & COMMUNICATION CONSULTANTS 720 OLIVe WAY • Still!' 1100 • SEATTLE, WA 98101.1853 FAX 206 667. 11!1!44 • PHONE 206-667.0555 ii r.: G'.: :N.:.iC;i:F.'.:;�JiTS!::.a:?:rii ili.L�vr'-•.3 .i ..., 5t:. z�,......... s.....,..., �........... �....,.......,, m.. rmm�euMr _.nvswsxrtY:.'(M'Lts3,'�lhi:!N i; SY':,:"'l�i+l i:�R.�.:S'u93F .y, xr.'r�C �.fMW�•�• ., t' 1ht�xa [U:.iM'Ce.WiI�FM- 'l:,'i,`P ::t1%.`.i`L:T. I.1L:F.d9'C1�.'i.;.- :•'!.t i'.r )ti! -')l l *r:Sf Interior Lighting Exhibition Facilities Exhibition areas will be illuminated using metal halide lowbay and highbay fixtures with glass reflectors that will provide an uplight component. The ceilings and structure will painted a light color to enhance illumination uniformity and to improve the psychological lighting qualities. The design will also consider indirect HID and the new T8 8'0" fluorescent lamp technologies in the lower ceiling areas. Meeting Rooms Where meeting room functions are intended, multiple lighting systems will be designed to provide flexibility and energy efficiency. The various systems will utilize a combination of HID, fluorescents and where necessary, incandescent. Service Areas Will be provided with HID where possible and with fluorescent where ceiling heights are too low. Lighting Controls Modest, but efficient controls will be provided as necessary to insure that smaller areas may be used without turning on a large, unoccupied area. All controls will be in compliance with the energy code. Dimming will be provided where visual presentations require. Switching will be provide to allow different lighting levels for setup and show. Utility Energy Grants Utility energy grants will be pursued to aid the Owner in providing the most energy efficient and cost effective lighting and control systems.